Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Dipped Headlights

Mr. Knox: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received about the need to make the use of dipped headlights compulsory in built-up areas.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): A number of representations have been received, mainly from the Night Safety Advisory Bureau, in favour of requiring the universal use of headlamps at night. There have also been representations against it.

Mr. Knox: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is some evidence to show that dipped headlights are safer than sidelights in built-up areas? Will he consider introducing legislation to make the use of dipped headlights compulsory in those areas?

Mr. Clarke: Many people use dipped headlights at night. I do. However, it is a matter of individual judgment. At present, the Government cannot contemplate introducing any legislation to make the use of dipped headlights compulsory.

Mr. Temple-Morris: In his reasonable way, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are two sides to this argument? Does he accept that in inner urban areas a motorist finds it difficult to see pedestrians if he faces a stream of oncoming traffic that is using headlights?

Mr. Clarke: I know that there are two sides to the argument. However, the

decision should be left to the individual judgment of motorists. The Government could not successfully make the use of head lights compulsory.

Highway Surfaces (Condition)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Transport what is his estimate of the cost of damage to vehicles or other property during 1980–81 as a result of unsatisfactory highway surfaces.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There is not yet any objective evidence to suggest that the condition of road surfaces generally is deteriorating seriously, or that the cost in real terms of wear and tear to vehicles and property is rising.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that an increasing number of motorists show growing distress and face mounting bills as a result of those unsatisfactory roads? Will he make clear that responsibility for next year rests with this Administration and not with local authorities? It is unfair that local authorities should receive the brunt of such criticism.

Mr. Clarke: Many motorists criticise the standards of highway maintenance. An objective study, the national road condition survey, is being carried out to investigate the position. Responsibility rests with local authorities. They should make the best use of the resources that we make available. They must make their own decisions about priorities for road maintenance in their areas.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on progress in planning the Channel tunnel.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Transport what recent discussions he has held concerning the Channel tunnel.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I have been examining preliminary proposals by British and French railways for a single track rail-only Channel tunnel. More needs to be done before the full implications of the scheme can be judged and variations might offer different advantages. I await with interest the full proposals which are due to be put to me this summer.
The decision to have a tunnel or any other link across the Channel must firstly be for the French and ourselves, and would need suitable arrangements between the two Governments. The cost of any scheme would be very large and I should make clear now that the Government cannot contemplate finding expenditure on this scale from public funds. However, if a scheme is commercially sound. I see no reason why private risk capital should not be available.
I look forward to receiving any specific proposals, including those on which British Railways are working, which would attract genuine risk capital.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that work will commence on boring the Channel tunnel by 1981? Will he further undertake that, once that work has commenced, there will be continuity of operation until completion?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot give such an undertaking. British Railways have not put forward their final scheme. We hope that schemes will come forward that can then be examined. However, they must meet the criteria. No public expenditure is available. The schemes must, therefore, attract private capital.

Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no parliamentary delay? Will he ensure that a simple enabling Bill is brought forward at the earliest opportunity once the schemes have been prepared? My right hon. Friend has mentioned risk capital. Will he assure the House that EEC transport infrastructure funds would be acceptable?

Mr. Fowler: Legislation will be necessary to deal with the first point, and the House will want to consider that legislation.
Concerning the possible EEC regulation on infrastructure, we welcome the Commission's initiative in proposing infrastructure aid. The Channel tunnel would be a natural candidate. At this stage no such regulation exists.

Mr. Booth: Does the Minister accept that there is a strange contrast between his absolute refusal to consider transport

integration in a national context and his apparent willingness to consider it here in an international context? Does he agree that the proposal for the Channel tunnel, which is limited in scope compared with the previous proposal, offers an energy-efficient form that would facilitate freightliner services across Europe from this country? If it is of considerable public advantage, why make that development dependent upon it facilitating private profit? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman lay before the House a green Paper so that we can debate the many implications that the proposal has for other forms of transport?

Mr. Fowler: It was the right hon. Gentleman's Government who ruled out public expenditure and cancelled the Channel project. It beggars belief for the right hon. Gentleman to come forward with such suggestions at this stage. The proposal is at an early stage, but, given the right scheme, there is a good opportunity for an enterprise that could be profitable and serve the national interest. I believe that the proposal would be widely welcomed by the public.

Mr. Costain: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the previous proposal—

Mr. Snape: "Can I have a contract?"

Mr. Costain: Because it was a one-user project, certain guarantees had to be given to the effect that the interest would be met by the Government? Does my right hon. Friend's announcement preclude that guarantee?

Mr. Fowler: We are looking for genuine private risk capital, but I do not preclude consideration of guarantees in the wider area.

Mr. Ogden: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is being a cautious Christian and that he has already seen a sufficient number of studies to decide on the project? We have British machinery for the boring, British Railways want to use the tunnel and there are interested freight and passenger users. The cost would be less than one Jumbo jet over the whole building period of the tunnel. Has the right hon. Gentleman given approval in principle? If we and others outside can find the money, will he allow us to go ahead?

Mr. Fowler: I thought that I had made it clear that, provided the details are right—and that is the whole point of what I am saying—there are good prospects for the tunnel. I know the hon. Gentleman's consistent interest in the subject over a long period, but I remind him that British Railways have not yet provided me with a complete scheme. He should interpret my statement as much more hopeful than any he received from his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call one more hon. Member from either side on this question, and then we shall move on.

Mr. Alan Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is disappointment that his guarded statement at the beginning has deteriorated? He now appears to be expressing approval of the proposal and believes that it will be in the national interest. Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a strong political element involved in the project whose purpose is to tie us more closely to the European Community? Will he deny published reports that he has been under strong pressure from interests in the Community urgently to approve the proposal?

Mr. Fowler: I assure my hon. Friend that I am under no pressure. My hon. Friend should see the matter in this way: there has been a growth of traffic across the Channel, which is likely to increase. Providing we get the right Scheme, a Channel tunnel would be the sensible way of meeting that public demand.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the Minister accept that, had the Channel tunnel existed, I should not have had to rely only on the airlines and would have been here five minutes earlier to congratulate him on his excellent statement? Will he confirm that nothing in the various studies he has so far seen seriously contradicts the cost estimates put forward by British Rail and SNCF at 1978 prices?

Mr. Fowler: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I know the problems that he had in getting here. None of the reports that I have contradict the impression that the British Railways scheme, under the assessment that they are mak

ing, is viable. However, I emphasise that we shall look at all schemes. I am asking Sir Alec Cairncross to widen his remit to take in a study of all schemes submitted to me.

High-Speed Rolling Stock

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Minister of Transport whether any proposals have been put to him by the British Railways Board for further investment in main line high-speed rolling stock.

Mr. Fowler: I have not received any proposals since those referred to in my reply of 23 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn).

Mr. Watkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the East Coast main line between London, the North-East of England, and Scotland, many Inter-City trains are seriously overcrowded and the position is constantly worsening? Will he accept that that demonstrates an urgent need for additional rolling stock?

Mr. Fowler: I am aware of the complaints of overcrowding on that line. However, approval has been given for 95 high-speed trains, and 60 of these are already in service.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, regarding investment in highspeed rolling stock, electrification or the Channel tunnel, British Railways feel increasingly that they could obtain funds other than Government funds were they not restrained by current legislation? Is my right hon. Friend considering discussions with the chairman of British Railways to change the financial relationship between the Government and British Railways over profitable new investment?

Mr. Fowler: I am starting discussions with the chairman of British Railways, and am prepared to consider that point.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Minister aware that, although the trials and building of the high-speed rolling stock took place in the Derby area, the line from Sheffield to St. Pancras is steadily deteriorating and a diversion is necessary on the main line from Edinburgh to complete the journey in 31 hours? Will he take action? Is he aware that South Yorkshire believes that it is considered a non-viable area


because it does not have a proper rail connection?

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept that generalisation. We have recently approved four high-speed trains on the East Coast main line. I am prepared further to consider the position of Sheffield.

Mr. Gummer: I understand that my right hon. Friend is to visit my constituency in the autumn. When he does so will he note the great need for highspeed anything on the line to Norwich? When he considers these proposals, will he bear in mind the bad journey that he will experience on his way to Diss?

Mr. Fowler: I am not sure that I regard that as the best way to persuade me to visit my hon. Friend's constituency. I shall certainly look at transport provision, including rail provision, in the East of England.

"Towards a Commuters' Charter"

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Minister of Transport what analysis he has made of the British Railways Board's publication"Towards a Commuters' Charter "; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: I am anxious to see an improvement in commuter services. I therefore welcome the commuters' charter, especially since it helps define the service improvements that the customer wants. I also attach great importance to the inquiry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the efficiency and quality of service of British Rail's London commuter services.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he could make a major contribution to improving commuter services, particularly between London and the North-East, if, in concert with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, he allowed British Railways to pull down Liverpool Street Station, brick by brick, and redevelop it?

Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly discuss that rather drastic proposal with the chairman of the British Railways Board. As for the general issue of improving commuter services, particularly those in my hon. Friend's constituency, I emphasise again the importance that I place on the

examination of those services by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Snape: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that no other railway in the world moves as many commuters in a day as does Southern Region? Will he take this opportunity to dissociate himself from the silly comments of his right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs in connection with the investigation of commuter services, especially since the right hon. Lady usually rides around in a Rolls-Royce and not a commuter train?

Mr. Fowler: I back entirely what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's investigation into the efficiency and quality of commuter services. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first remarks, but the efficiency and quality of commuter services has not been investigated in this way before. I think that it is in the interests of commuters, and that, after all, is what we are about in transport policy.

Mr. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are probably far more people in favour of improving commuter services than there are in favour of the Channel tunnel? Will he therefore make clear that, when he says that public funds are not to be used on the Channel tunnel, he is referring also to public funds under the control of British Rail which could be used for commuter services and other purposes?

Mr. Fowler: My right hon. Friend takes me back one stage. I do not complain about that, but I do not agree with the division that he is making. Clearly the impact on commuter services is a matter which we shall study when we look in detail at the Channel tunnel schemes that are put forward. I disagree when my right hon. Friend says that the Channel tunnel will not be of great benefit. I believe that it will be of benefit both to the public and to the railway industry.

Mr. Prescott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment that if the inquiry into commuter services in the South-East establishes that there is a lack of investment in that area he will raise public money and provide the appropriate investment for those services?

Mr. Fowler: I shall obviously have to take account of that matter, and I hope that British Rail will take account of any recommendations or proposals about the efficiency, standard and productivity of the, services.

Road Haulage Permits

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the effects of the distribution scheme for road haulage permits for British transport companies operating in France.

Mr. Fowler: There are not enough French permits to meet demand, and the effects of any rationing scheme are bound to be unsatisfactory. I take every opportunity to press for increases, and for the eventual abolition of all quotas. Meanwhile I expect very shortly to announce new measures to assist firms which have genuine difficulty in acquiring permits.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that the paucity of permits is having a damaging effect on our road transport industry? Can he tell me how it is possible, given that we are members of the Common Market, for one member of the Market to impose a restrictive transport policy and for leading citizens of that country to seek to give us lessons on what being a good member of the Common Market entails?

Mr. Fowler: I have great sympathy with that point of view. It is exactly the view that I seek to put in Europe. Let me make clear that we want no such restrictions. We have been successful in negotiating increases in the permit quota — 24 per cent. in the current year in relation to France. I do not disagree when my hon. Friend says that the final goal must be the abolition of such restrictions.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would we not be in a better position to negotiate satisfactory conditions for our transport industry if we were not in the EEC at all?

Mr. Fowler: No. The opposite would be the case.

Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that companies that have been in breach of the regulations in some minuscule way are forever banned from

getting these permits? Is he also aware that when a limited company has a legal entity of its own, but a common directorship with another limited company, with a separate legal entity, that second company suffers from any ban on the first? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, with all the expertise of the drivers involved, the situation is causing great loss and hardship? Will he look at that aspect of the linking of companies, which is wrong and illegal?

Mr. Fowler: We want to make the system as flexible as we can and I undertake to look at that matter.

M40 (Oxford to Birmingham)

Mr. Cadbury: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to make a statement about proposals to extend the M40 from Oxford to Birmingham.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Very shortly.

Mr. Cadbury: Is my hon. Friend aware that the road forms a vital part of the export route that links the industrial Midlands to the South Coast? Will he ensure that every effort is made to press ahead with the extension of the M40 to Birmingham as soon as possible?

Mr. Clarke: I accept entirely my hon. Friend's description of the importance of that route. I said "Very shortly" and we are on the point of making a definite announcement about the status of the complete length of road involved.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has renumbered the M42 Bromsgrove section of the M40? For the avoidance of false hopes or fears, will he indicate clearly the Government's intention regarding the construction of that Bromsgrove section once the inquiries have been concluded?

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure about the numbering of the motorway, but we certainly intend to resume statutory inquiries now that the legal problems have been removed. We hope to complete the statutory procedures for the M42 Bromsgrove section and the Warwick-Umberslade section of the M40. When the White Paper on roads is produced later this year it will contain details of the dates of construction and the planning for the future of both routes.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present stretch of the M40 from London to Oxford is not particularly busy and that many of us who travel on that road every day consider that, instead of having the motorway continued from Oxford to Birmingham, it might be better and cheaper, and save much agricultural land, if the present main road were improved?

Mr. Clarke: The improvement of parts of the present road is one of the possibilities that we have been looking at, but the present M40 is already quite busy and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) said, an extension to Birmingham could be a valuable industrial link and provide a great deal of relief for the M1 which, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, is desperately overcrowded between the industrial Midlands and London.

Mr. Snape: Has not the hon. Gentleman considered the potential of the Oxford-Birmingham railway line? Does he not agree that it might be better to spend money on upgrading that line instead of wasting millions of pounds on a motorway when, by all accounts, there will be no energy for any cars to use in 20 years' time?

Mr. Clarke: It is artificial to try to set up a conflict between the needs for investment on the London to Oxford railway line and the needs of industrial road traffic between the West Midlands and London. We have to look at investment projects for both in the light of transport needs and judge our priorities accordingly.

Reflecting Discs (Children)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Minister of Transport how many representations he has received in 1980 regarding the availability of reflecting discs for children to wear or carry after dark.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: None, apart from the hon. and learned Member's in previous questions. However, I welcome recent efforts to promote the use of reflective discs.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the failure of other hon. Members to assist in this campaign, more than 1 million discs have been sold.

largely as a result of the efforts of the Sunday Mirror and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents? Bearing in mind that such discs are likely to save many children's lives, will the Minister take the initiative in encouraging their use and discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the possibility of the discs being zero-rated for VAT?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. and learned Gentleman's campaign may be a lone one in the House so far, but it is certainly a worthwhile one. I congratulate the Sunday Mirror on the campaign which has resulted in 1 million discs being distributed. We encourage anything that will make pedestrians, particularly children, more conspicuous at night. The question of the VAT rating of discs is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I shall refer the problem to him.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are in favour of the campaign and it is not a one-man campaign? Many of us are interested in saving the lives of young children who are at risk on the roads. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides urge him to take action and to discuss with his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science ways of extending the campaign?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the campaign has widespread support. Anything that we can do to encourage the greater use of discs and any other means of making pedestrians more conspicuous will be done. There is no need to cast doubt on the value or effectiveness of the campaign.

Tachograph Regulations (Scottish Islands)

Mr. John MacKay: asked the Minister of Transport if he has made any progress towards exempting the Scottish Islands from the European Economic Community tachograph regulations.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The United Kingdom cannot unilaterally make exemptions from the EEC tachograph regulation. We have, however, included in our domestic regulations special provisions designed to meet the difficulties of the Scottish Islands as far as possible.

Mr. MacKay: Will my hon. Friend try to persuade the EEC to make exemptions to the regulation, such as the United Kingdom has done over the years in respect of our plating and testing regulations without causing any damage? I would have thought that it would not break the Common Market to make similar exemptions for the Islands.

Mr. Clarke: There are a number of changes that we would like to see in the EEC regulation. We shall probably best be able to negotiate on those changes once the regulation is in force in this country. It has been a weakness in our negotiating position in the past that we have delayed so long before complying with the law. Before we can make any amendment to the regulation, we are proceeding with preparation of the remote area standards scheme for calibration which, we hope, will ease problems in remote areas like the Western Isles.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that, in the Scottish Islands, because of the distances and the ferry timetables, journeys that would take a few hours on the mainland can take up to two days? The use of the tachograph in such circumstances would be extremely disadvantageous. If the EEC will not agree to exemption, will he deal with the matter in the same way as the French would deal with it?

Mr. Clarke: We are concerned that the remote area scheme should be of some use to hauliers in the area. I am glad to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that one of the tachograph manufacturers has informed us that it intends to seek approval to provide calibration services on Orkney and Shetland and at such places as Oban, Wick, Tain, Fort William, Campbeltown, Galashiels, Kelso and Aberlour. The journeys that hauliers have to make may not be so long and difficult as the right hon. Gentleman contemplates.

Mr. Jay: Following the admirable example of Rhodesia, would it not be a good idea if these Islands established their independence?

Mr. Clarke: Sitting alongside the right hon. Gentleman is the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who is the only Member of the House who agrees with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not

think that the tachograph is the best argument even for Scottish nationalism.

Factory tractors (Road Speeds)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport if he will bring forward proposals for speeds limits of less than 30 kilometres per hour on factory tractors when using public highways, thus avoiding them being subject to tachographs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I shall consult those directly concerned about this suggestion, for which I am very grateful.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital to solve this problem? If British industry has to introduce tachographs into these tractors, it will involve a cost of many hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Mr. Clarke: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that present EEC regulations would allow us to exempt tractors with a maximum authorised speed not exceeding 30 kilometres an hour. That would seem to comprise most industrial tractors. We shall follow up this helpful suggestion. We shall probably have to consult about it, and, eventually, produce regulations to be approved by the House.

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend make sure, in the process, that the importance and value of the contribution that the tachograph can make to safer driving is emphasised? We are constantly attacking some things that happen as a result of membership of the Common Market. This is a good thing that should be said to be a good thing.

Mr. Clarke: I believe that the tachograph was attacked by many people simply because it came from the EEC, although its first proponent was Mrs. Barbara Castle, as Minister of Transport. It is astonishing that, now this Government have had the courage to get on with complying with the law, how little fuss is being made about its introduction in the road haulage industry.

Mr. Prescott: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that when Barbara Castle introduced the proposal it was a voluntary measure? When this matter was debated in the House the estimate was that the cost of implementation would be £150


million. Industry now says that it will cost over £300 million. What is the Government estimate?

Mr. Clarke: I have no reason to revise the estimate that we gave in the debate. It seems that there is little objection or complaint, in practice, to the steady introduction of the tachograph into the country.

London Transport

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Transport when he plans to meet the chairman of London Transport.

Mr. Fowler: Soon.

Mr. Butcher: While noting that my right hon. Friend has no direct responsibility for London Transport, may I ask him, when he next meets the chairman, to remind him that following a 40 per cent. increase in bus fares, it is time for an aggressive acceleration of the policy of the introduction of one-man buses?

Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend says, I have no direct responsibility. I am sure that both the chairman of London Transport and the chairman of the GLC will be concerned to achieve maximum efficiency in London Transport.

Mr. McCrindle: Has London Transport made an application to my right hon. Friend for the closure of the Epping-Ongar branch of the Central line? If so, will he consider holding a meeting, before proceeding with consideration of the closure, of all the interested parties to see whether some common agreement can be found to fund the admitted losses on this section of the line?

Mr. Fowler: The answer to my hon. Friend's first point is "No". My consent has not been sought in this case. Unlike British Rail services, this is a local service for which there is no direct Government support. That was the position of the previous Government. I shall bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend on the general position.

Mr. Booth: In view of recent reports of attacks on London Transport workers, will the Minister discuss this matter when he next meets the chairman? Has he had discussions with the Home Secretary to see whether some protection is needed in particular areas so that public service

workers will not have to consider refusing to man certain services in certain places?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the whole House will deplore the violence seen last weekend, and, particularly, the injuries inflicted on London Transport staff and on members of the public. This is becoming an increasingly serious problem. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will be holding a working conference, I hope, next month, involving the trade unions and the organisers of the transport industries, on violence on public transport. At the same time, the Government's general policy of strengthening the police and their emphasis on law and order must also make a contribution to tackling the question.

Mr. Forman: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether Neasden is in the constituency of either hon. Member. Mr. Nigel Forman.

Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. Friend, when he next meets the chairman of London Transport, ask him to explain to Londoners why so many London buses seem to travel in convoy? Is it to do with safety in numbers? Is it operating practice? Or are the crews not fulfilling the instructions of management?

Mr. Fowler: I do not think I shall attempt a quick, flip answer. It will be one of the aspects of my discussions with the GLC and with the chairman of London Transport about the efficiency of the service. I understand my hon. Friend's concern.

Heavy Lorries (A6-M63)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with Greater Manchester council and Stockport metropolitan borough council about heavy lorries making their way from the A6 to the M63 now and when the next stages of the M63 are opened.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: None, Sir.

Mr. Bennett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will disappoint my constituents? Many have been concerned, since the M63 spur road opened, about the number of heavy lorries using main


and minor roads through Edgeley and Cheadle Heath. Is he aware that they would like a guarantee that, once the next stage of the M63 is built, traffic will travel from the A6 to the M63 through nonresidential areas and cause them as little difficulty as possible? Does he realise that they would also like to see far more of the heavy limestone conveyed from the Peak District in this direction carried by British Rail?

Mr. Clarke: I appreciate the concern. Our lack of discussion is not because we downgrade the importance of the matter. These local roads are the responsibility of the Greater Manchester council. Traffic management schemes, and any diversion of lorry traffic, are primarily a matter for the council. I am sure that it will bear in mind the comments of the hon. Gentleman.

Type Approval

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with type approval regulations.

Mr. Fowler: I am currently considering whether any changes are needed to the regulations.

Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend think it an anomaly that there should be strict type approval regulations for private vehicles but apparently no type approval regulations for commercial vehicles? Is this not detrimental to Leyland vehicles, for example, at a time when it has produced a new vehicle capable of making competitive inroads into commercial vehicle sales?

Mr. Fowler: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. It is a concern that has also been expressed by Michael Edwardes. We are considering the possibilities. I hope to be able to announce a decision shortly.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister agree that the 13 per cent. swing against the Tories at Southend demonstrates a distinct lack of approval for the "Cathcart retread"?

Mr. Fowler: I advise the hon. Gentleman to wait a little in case he crows too early.

Roads White Paper

Mr. Dobson: asked the Minister of Transport when he now expects to publish his White Paper on Roads.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The programme will be set out in the roads White Paper, which will be published after the Easter Recess.

Mr. Dobson: In view of the recent House of Lords decision that roads programme policy cannot be challenged at public inquiries, and since the House last debated the roads programme in 1971, does the Minister agree that it is now appropriate for the House to be given the opportunity to discuss the forthcoming roads White Paper? Is the Minister aware that we have spent £15 billion on the road programme since the House last debated it?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's description of the House of Lord's decision is a travesty of the judgment in the Bushell and Brunt case. The statement in that case will, I hope, help us to return to roads programme inquiries which are conducted in a way which allows the merits and demerits of road programmes to be discussed in a sensible fashion and, therefore, act as a genuine aid to the decision-making process. We welcome the idea of a debate on the White Paper when it is published, but that is a matter for the Leader of the House.

Mr. Dover: Does the Minister accept that investment in roads and motorways is essential for the economic recovery of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Clarke: I agree about the importance of investment but it must be in the right roads and the right motorways. We have to balance the industrial and traffic needs and the environmental damage that can be done by putting roads in the wrong places.

Mr. John Evans: Can the Minister confirm that the White Paper will not be based on an increase in lorry axle weights in order to suit the proposals of our European colleagues?

Mr. Clarke: We are awaiting the Armitage report. The roads White Paper will not deal with lorry axle weights. Obviously, we always try to


keep the design of road surfaces in line with the traffic that uses them.

Mr. Haselhurst: May we have an assurance that the White Paper will deal adequately with the vexed question of noise emanating from roads because of bad surfaces or the failure to provide adequate sound barriers, or both?

Mr. Clarke: We try to take noise problems into account when designing roads. I can assure my hon. Friend that, without waiting for the White Paper, we are studying the particular noise problems that have arisen on the M11 in his constituency.

Crossing Point Signs (Elderly and Disabled Persons)

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the provision of special traffic signs to indicate crossing points used frequently by elderly or disabled people.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Yes, Sir. We have decided that these could be worthwhile if used where large numbers of blind, disabled or elderly people regularly cross a road unaccompanied. We have, therefore, included a proposed sign in the draft traffic signs regulations which have just been circulated to interested bodies for their comments.

Mr. Mills: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents who live on "danger mile" on the A5 at Grendon will greet that statement with great enthusiasm? Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the needs of spots, such as I have described, in many other parts of the country where people take their lives into their hands when crossing the road?

Mr. Clarke: There is considerable demand for a sign of that type. We must decide on the right criteria for the use of such signs. However, in many places, including that in my hon. Friend's constituency, such provision would be welcome.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that crossing points generally are becoming more and more abused by motorists? One has only to step outside the Palace of Westminster to realise that zebra crossings are not regarded with respect by motorists. Can the Minister do anything to improve policing to solve the problem?

Mr. Clarke: We rely on the police to enforce the regulations. The police have manpower problems but I am sure that they will bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind. To a large extent we rely on the courtesy, common sense and good behaviour of road users when approaching zebra crossings.

Mr. Grieve: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members take their lives in their hands when they cross to St. Stephen's Entrance from Old Palace Yard for Divisions? Will he consider erecting an appropriate sign in that vicinity?

Mr. Clarke: That is a problem for Westminster council and the police who look after us in the building. When leaving the House in my official car I shall remember what my hon. and learned Friend has said and draw it to the attention of whoever is responsible for the arrangements.

Sheffield-Woodhead-Manchester Railway

Mr. Flannery: asked the Minister of Transport if he will visit the Sheffield-Woodhead-Manchester railway line.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, Sir.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Minister think again about his answer and decide to visit the Sheffield-Woodhead-Manchester line? Does he realise that the imminent closure of the line is in contradiction with the view of Sheffield city council, the South Yorkshire council, the Manchester council and the Labour and trade union movements in both areas? Is he aware that nobody can understand why the line should be closed? Is he further aware that it is to be closed against the wishes of local people by remote officials? Will he discuss the matter with the people concerned and challenge the proposed closure?

Mr. Clarke: The decision on the future of the line is a matter solely for British Rail. It is not a matter for Ministers. As I said in a recent Adjourment debate, in response to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay), British Rail has consulted every conceivable interested body and has been doing so for a long time. I have no doubt that British Rail is fully aware of the views of those bodies mentioned by


the hon. Gentleman. If it is a redundant freight line, obviously it is common sense, and in the interests of the rail network, that steps should be taken to close it.

Mr. Murphy: If my hon. Friend is unable to visit the railway line at Sheffield, will he find time instead—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. The Minister will not have time this afternoon.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister seek to ensure that a little vision is applied? Does he realise that we are discussing an important east-west line? Is he aware that, if it were used for development in connection with improving the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation it could greatly facilitate east-west links and the development and expansion of our exports?

Mr. Clarke: I appreciate the importance of east-west links over the Pennines. However, there are no fewer than four railway lines that cross east to west in the area. There is a great excess of capacity over predictable freight needs in the area. It is proper for British Rail to examine the possible closure of one of the four lines. The Manchester-Woodhead line needs millions of pounds spent on it to modernise it to the same electrification standards as the rest of the network. It would be wrong for Ministers to insist that that money is spent there or to give a higher priority to investment in that project than to other parts of the network.

Transport Supplementary Grant (Greater London)

Mr. Guy Barnett: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the transport supplementary grant for Greater London.

Mr. Fowler: In the 1980–81 settlement announced last December I accepted £232 million local transport expenditure for Greater London on which I allocated £103 million grant. It is for Greater London Council to decide how to employ the resources available to it for transport.

Mr. Barnett: Does the Secretary of State believe that that sum is anything like adequate to cope with the problems

of economic and industrial revival in the inner city areas of London, particularly in dockland? Is the Minister aware that the construction of the M25, though welcome, will act as a magnet for industrial development, drawing that industrial development out of London? Does he appreciate the vital importance of building roads such as the southern relief road in dockland which will enable that area to attract the industry which it needs so badly?

Mr. Fowler: The GLC received a marginally bigger share of expected expenditure than in 1979–80. We have made it clear that we put the greatest priority on the development of dockland. Clearly, one part of that development must be the construction of better road links.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister said that the GLC will receive marginally more. How does that compare with 20 per cent. inflation? Is it 20 per cent. more?

Mr. Fowler: No.

Motor Cycle Licences (Dispatching Procedures)

Mr. Hawksley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to stop the practice of including with motorcycle licences, an application form for a kidney donor's card when the licences are dispatched, in view of the distress it can cause to a licence holder and his or her family.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, Sir. I understand that a significant number of those who carry cards were introduced to them in this way and I hope that most people regard this as a useful means of increasing public awareness of the donor scheme. Whether drivers use the cards is, of course, entirely a matter for personal decision.

Mr. Hawksley: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I do not wish to suggest that the kidney donor scheme is not good or desirable. However, will the Minister bear in mind the anxiety which is caused to parents of youngsters who are obtaining their first licence, when those parents do not, perhaps, wish their child to have a licence? Is he aware that such parent; experience anxiety when such a form is included with the licence?

Mr. Clarke: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, but I believe that one must be rather sensitive to take that view. I should have thought that most people who applied for a driving licence would realise that there are hazards involved in going out on to the road. The level of reaction we receive to sending out the cards is not very high compared with the 44 million cards that we are able to distribute in this way. I think that it would damage the kidney donor scheme if we stopped distributing the cards.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman consider widening the scheme by discussing the matter with his right hon. and hon. Friends and by including those cards in income tax demands and television licence renewal reminders?

Mr. Clarke: I am sure that the practices of the Department of Transport will be widely followed in many other Departments. Whether one needs to be reminded of any other possible doom which might befall one when one receives one's income tax demand is, no doubt, a matter that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will consider.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Non-industrial Civil Servants

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he has any longer-term plans to reduce the total number of non-industrial civil servants by a fixed amount over a specific period.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Paul Channon): I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in the House on 6 December. I then announced savings of 39,000 posts; of these some 28,000 will be non-industrial. There are further studies going on in a number of Departments which will result in savings, and, in addition, I told the House on 14 March that there would be a further 2½ per cent. additional saving in manpower costs in 1980–81.

Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the annual turnover among non-industrial civil servants is currently running at 11½ per cent? If that is the figure, is it not true that the numbers of non-industrial civil servants, if Parliament so willed it, could be reduced sub-

stantially without causing redundancies or forced resignations? If that is so, will my right hon. Friend encourage a national debate about how many civil servants we should have?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is broadly right. Wastage is approximately 11 per cent. The approximate figures are 8 per cent. wastage and 3 per cent. retirement. I confirm that savings of the kind that I have announced can be achieved, I hope, with few redundancies. We are certainly not looking for redundancies.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of a reply I received from the Treasury on Monday which indicates huge reductions in staff in the Inland Revnue? Is it not an interesting reflection on the priorities of this Government that they are employing 1,000 additional social security snoopers whereas the number of people available to tackle the much greater problem of tax evasion is being seriously reduced?

Mr. Chanson: I am sure that the House would like to see fewer people employed both in the Inland Revenue and in the Department of Health and Social Security.

Mr. Cryer: Not necessarily.

Mr. Channon: In that case there is a difference of opinion between the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and me —not for the first time. I am glad to tell the House that the latest figures show that the Department of Health and Social Security employs 3,000 fewer staff than last year. The hon. Member's question is therefore based on a false premise.

Mr. Freud: When the Minister next examines the long-term plans for making savings in the Civil Service will he, in the light of the answers he gave to a question about the numbers of Government information officers, bear in mind that there has been no shrinkage, either in the number or the salaries of those information officers? The only shrinkage has been in the amount of information that has come forth.

Mr. Chanson: I noted what the hon. Member says and I shall discuss it with those of my colleagues who are principally responsible.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Notwithstanding the excellent reply that my hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), will he take his suggestion seriously? Is it not the case that in this, as in other spheres, there is something to be said for a long-term target, if only as a check on the activities of the Government?

Mr. Channon: I am against long-term targets because I believe that it is better to proceed in specific areas in an attempt to get numbers down. However, both my hon. Friends have a point and I will reexamine it.

Mr. John Grant: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) may I ask the Minister whether it is not time that the Government stopped using the Civil Service as a scapegoat for all their ills? Will the Minister give a straight answer to a simple question? If the Civil Service staff side unions accepted the 14 per cent. pay offer made to them, within the cash limits, would that mean no additional cuts in the Civil Service?

Mr. Channon: It is not true that the Government are making the Civil Service a scapegoat. I am doing my utmost to achieve the smaller Civil Service which I believe is in the national interest and also in the long-term interest of the Civil Service, while at the same time trying not to damage any individual. I believe that a reduction in the size of the Civil Service is a high national priority and we are working towards that.

Civil Servants (Car Allowances)

Mr. Steen: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what estimate he makes of the total annual car allowance payments to civil servants.

Mr. Channon: Separate records of this are not kept centrally. In the circumstances, the best estimate that can be made is about £50 million. I have recently asked for a study to be made of the whole question.

Mr. Steen: Will the Minister follow the lead set by General Zia of Pakistan who has issued his entire Cabinet with bicycles? Will the Minister encourage civil servants to travel around inner urban areas by bicycle rather than by car since

a great deal of public money can be saved in that way? Will the Minister set an example next week by telling his Private Office that he will be pedalling with them on a tandem?

Mr. Channon: I am reluctant to do that because the Government are not anxious to face another by-election in Southend at present. I had not thought of taking General Zia as an example for the Civil Service but I shall consult my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Hurd). I am sure that all those who can bicycle —that does not include me—will do so whenever possible so that they are fitter and thus better equipped for the tasks of the day.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: When the Minister examines the position will he note that top civil servants, the permanent secretaries in Whitehall, use chauffeur-driven cars to take them to Victoria Station and to Charing Cross station when buses and taxis stop outside their offices? Could not those civil servants take a bus instead of using Government cars?

Mr. Channon: When I discusssed this matter with some of the younger members of the Civil Service it was their keen wish that all senior permanent secretaries should use bicycles, on the ground that there would be more rapid promotion for them. When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) spoke of a tandem I did not know that he had the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) in mind as my companion.

Civil Service Posts (Northern Region)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service posts have been transferred to the Northern region since May 1979.

Mr. Channon: Information about posts transferred to the Northern region for management reasons is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Dormand: The Minister knows that there have not been any transfers. Is that not another example of the vendetta being carried out by this Government against the Northern region? Does the Minister recall the transfers proposed


by the previous Government which included the PSA headquarters to Middlesbrough and Government Chemist's Laboratory to Cumbria? Those plans were stopped by this Government. Will the Minister say what consideration is being given to the transfer of such posts? Does he not realise that there is a crying need for that kind of employment in the Northern region? Will the Minister reopen consideration of the transfer of Civil Service work to the North?

Mr. Channon: I should be misleading the House if I offered any prospect of reopening the dispersal issue at this stage. After a great deal of study we changed decisions last July. I told the hon. Member that there were post transfers for management reasons and that that was why I could not give him the figures for which he asked. We considered the transfer of the PSA to Middlesbrough and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist to West Cumbria with great care. The net Exchequer cost of those two moves during the next four or five years would be more than £40 million. It was impossible to justify the moves on that ground alone.

Mr. Jesse': Does my hon. Friend see any purpose in moving jobs from London to the North at such great expense when there is unemployment in London?

Mr. Channon: That is one of the factors to be borne in mind. We have to take into account the costs and benefits of any move. In the Northern region there is a large number of Civil Service posts already. In fact in the North there

are more Civil Service posts than in most parts of the country.

Mr. David Watkins: Following upon that, how many Civil Service posts are likely to be transferred away from, or otherwise lost in the Northern region in pursuance of the Government's policies?

Mr. Channon: In pursuance of obtaining a smaller Civil Service in general I have no reason to suppose that there will be any untoward loss in the Northern region compared with any other region. I see no reason to assume that is would not be broadly—I cannot give the exact figure—across the board.

Mr. John Grant: Will the Minister now answer the question which he blatantly evaded when I asked him earlier? If the staff side unions accept 14 per cent. within the cash limits, will the Government give an assurance that there will be no additional staff cuts? If not, why not?

Mr. Channon: First, I am not prepared to negotiate Civil Service pay across this Box. That is a matter between the unions and the official side. It is not a matter to be debated between the two sides of the House. I do not believe that that is the way to carry out pay negotiations and neither would the Opposition if they were in power.
Offers have been made to the Civil Service unions. We have set them within a cash limit of 14 per cent. I believe that it is right on its merits that there should be a smaller Civil Service. That is something that the Government are working towards.

OLYMPIC GAMES (GENEVA TALKS)

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyell (by private notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the talks yesterday at Geneva of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on possible alternative post-Olympic Games.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Representatives of 12 countries met in Geneva on 17 and 18 March to discuss the possibility of arranging competitions of high quality, primarily for athletes who stayed away from the Moscow Olympics. Useful progress was made in identifying possible sites for alternative events which might be held in late August/early September. The participants in the meeting will now undertake further contacts with other Governments and with national and international sporting bodies to develop these ideas.
I chaired the first day's proceedings, which were held in the British mission in Geneva, and Mr. Cutler, President Carter's special counsellor, the second. A summary of the meeting was prepared by the co-chairmen and agreed by the meeting, and copies of this have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give the names of any sporting organisations that have encouraged the Government in this project?

Mr. Hurd: A number of sporting organisations from our contacts, whose eyes are still set on Moscow, are nevertheless increasingly interested and concerned—

Mr. Dalyell: Name them.

Mr. Hurd: —about the likelihood of an effective boycott, including the total absence from Moscow of American and perhaps German athletes. Our consultations with these sporting bodies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."]—are and will remain confidential. It is for them to express their views when they think the time has come.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend not be put off by the scepticism of Opposition Members in seeking to organise some kind of international festival of

this sort? Will he acknowledge that it cannot be a substitute for the Olympics, however they may now take place? Will he also, as soon as may be, encourage Governments to draw back from the arrangements that are to be made and place them in the hands of an international organising committee comprising individual citizens who are knowledgeable in the realms of sport and of voluntary bodies that may be prepared to assist?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's last suggestion may be the right way to proceed. First, we have to put to the sporting organisations one by one—there are 21 different Olympic sports—the detailed suggestions that we worked out in the past two days and see whether, in the light of the developing boycott, they are interested in pursuing these ideas.

Mr. Shore: I think that this meeting in Geneva was always somewhat mysterious. I do not think that the House is very much clearer about the scope of the meeting and, indeed, what came out of it, as a result of the Minister's reply.
I should like to put three questions to the Minister. First, how many countries actually attended and how many were invited to come to the meeting? Secondly, had all the countries that attended the meeting recommended to their own sporting bodies that they should not attend the Olympic Games? Thirdly, what has been the response so far of the national Olympic committees in those countries to that request?

Mr. Hurd: As I said in my answer, 12 countries attended. They comprised a group that had met quietly for some time to discuss these matters at official level. Therefore, one meeting led to another, which is the normal way in which international meetings take place. This meeting was held in a blaze of publicity. I do not think that there is any particular mystery about it.
Some of the countries represented in Geneva have not yet come out firmly in favour of a boycott. A large number of other countries are sitting on the fence and have not yet made a decision. They will make their decisions during the next few clays, or weeks, I should say. The same is true of the national Olympic committees. I think that it is true to say that


no national Olympic committee in any major Western sporting country has yet taken a decision "Yes" or "No".

Mr. Kilfedder: As the United States ambassador in London admitted frankly in an interview last week that there was a degree of electioneering in President Carter's original call for a boycott of the Olympic Games, and since fewer than half the Members of the House voted in support of the Government's call for a boycott, will the Minister now abandon this move for pseudo-Olympic Games, which will be the death knell of the Olympics?

Mr. Hurd: No, Sir. We strongly believe and will continue to express the view that the attendance of British athletes at Moscow while the Soviet Union continues its aggression in Afghanistan is against British interests.
Having expressed that view, we felt it right to explore with other countries, whose feelings are broadly similar, whether we could help some of the would-be competitors, whom we are asking to take a very difficult decision, by organising in good circumstances high-quality competitions in which they could take part after Moscow. That seems an entirely sensible approach and one with which we shall persevere.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister tell the House how many atheletes attended the meeting of the 12 nations—or, if he will not give the number of athletes, at least the ratio of athletes to diplomats?
Secondly, does the Minister have any reason to believe that if the alternative Games are held they will not be boycotted by all those nations which attend the official Olympics in Moscow?
Finally, will the Minister continue to bear in mind the inequity of sacrifice demanded of athletes as against other people?

Mr. Hurd: The meeting in Geneva was a meeting of representatives of Governments. It was preceded and will be succeeded by consultations with national and international sporting organisations. We are not and did not pretend at Geneva to be in the business of taking decisions on behalf of sporting organisations. We worked out a set of suggestions, which we shall now put to them.
On the hon. Gentleman's second question, the number of organisations or sportsmen who smile upon these ideas will vary, sport by sport. Therefore, we shall be able to answer his question only when we have their response, in some weeks' time.
The third point—

Mr. Dalyell: Who smile?

Mr. Hurd: I said that the success of this venture will depend on the number who do. We know that a number of sporting organisations are interested in this approach. As I have already said, it is for them to state their intentions when their own plans and ideas are clear.
The final question put to me by the hon. Gentleman was discussed at great length, in my absence, in the debate on Monday, and the House reached a satisfactory conclusion on it.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Will my hon. Friend remember that this is a matter not just for the vested interests of athletes as a whole but for Governments and people as a whole? Does he not think that perhaps our athletes have got a tiny bit self-centred and selfish in this whole matter?

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I am not sure that that is a wise approach to the subject. There is a kernel of truth in what the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said, namely, that because of the accident that the Olympics are taking place in 1980, at a time when the host country is conducting continued aggression against another country—a wholly new position in the history of the Olympic Games—it means, unfortunately, that we are asking a great sacrifice of our athletes. We accept that. That is why we are trying to help.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. I propose to call two hon. Members from either side, and to call the Front Bench at the end.

Mr. Heffer: Does the Minister recall—I think that he is old enough to do so—the slogan written on walls during the Second World War which asked "Is your journey really necessary"? From the


pathetic statement made by the Minister from the Dispatch Box today, is it not clear that his journey was not really necessary, and that it would have been better if he had stayed in Britain?

Mr. Hurd: I am sorry that I missed the hon. Gentleman's brief intervention in the debate on Monday. I did not attend the meeting in Geneva with any high hopes. However, we made rather more progress and produced more specific suggestions than I had expected. The success of the enterprise will depend on the way in which it is received by the sporting organisations whom we are now consulting.

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that if the Government wish to persuade the public of the valid arguments for boycotting the Olympics, more information will have to be given from now on about any alternative plan? Does he appreciate that the weakness of our position is that we are asking for an inordinate sacrifice from sportsmen and not from others, such as business men, in respect of their relationships with the Soviet Union?

Mr. Hurd: We have been criticised in the house, especially by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who tabled the question, for failure in the past to consult sporting organisations sufficiently. In this enterprise, that is precisely what we intend to do. This enterprise has only just started. The hon. Member for West Lothian would be a little unwise to write it off at this stage. I warn him of that. [Interruption.] I warn him out of regard for his reputation for wisdom in the House.
Because we intend to hold consultations it would not be sensible for me to read out to the House the exact suggestions on which we intend to base our consultations

Mr. McNamara: I refer to the original statement of the Minister, when he seemed to indicate that athletes would be faced with a choice of competing either at Moscow or at alternative Games. Will he take this opportunity to say that there will be no boycott on athletes who attend Moscow to prevent their taking part in any alternative Games? If the Government are putting their money where their mouths are, will the hon. Gentleman tell

the House how much public money will be given to promote the alternative Games?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's first assumption is correct. The financial aspects of the alternative Games will need further study. Much will depend—as it does in the financing of all sporting events—on the nature of television coverage.

Mr. David Price: At the meeting in Genera, did my hon. Friend discuss an alternative venue for sailing? Is he aware that the sailing events will take place not is Moscow but in Tallinn, in Estonia, which was annexed by the Soviet Union as a result of a carve-up between Ribbentrop and Molotov in 1940. It is highly relevant that that occupation is 30 years older than the occupation of Afghanistan.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. We are in touch with the yachting authorities. I noted in a press report today that dissidents are being arrested in Tallinn to prevent their putting their point of view to any yachtsman who may go to that country.

Mr. Denis Howell: It is not now crystal clear that the Geneva meeting was an attempt to organise an alternative to the Olympic movement, and an attack upon international sport as we know it? The various sporting organisations were not consulted before Ministers attended that meeting.
Will the Minister say whether the information that I gave to the House in the debate on Monday was considered by his colleagues and conveyed to him, namely, that 18 international governing bodies of sport had said that they would not sanction any such alternative competition, and that any sportsmen taking part would exclude themselves from international sport?
The Minister said that no national governing body had yet taken a decision on the issue. Will he say why 104 such bodies accepted the invitation of the 10C to compete in the Games? Was that matter considered by his colleagues?
If we are to rely on world-wide television to finance alternative Games, what information can the Minister give us to the effect that television will be any more dictated to by the Government than the sporting bodies? How do we know that it will finance the alternative Games?
Why did the Minister with responsibilities for sport not attend the meeting in Geneva? Has sport in this country been taken over totally by the Foreign Office? Why did the Government embark upon such a ludicrous exercise?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman does himself no credit by these questions. He is not doing himself justice. We do not rely on the right hon. Gentleman for our knowledge of what happens within the sporting bodies. We have our own information from numerous contacts that have been made in the past few weeks. I was armed with such information at Geneva.
The right hon. Gentleman was correct when he referred to the IOC decision. However, I was talking of the individual decisions of national Olympic committees. Even they are less significant than the individual decisions of individual sporting organisations in the 21 sports.
The examination of possible finance from television coverage for the alternative Games is at an early stage. Nobody can force television to cover any event. If, as a result of our suggestions, it were possible to establish a series of high-quality events in different parts of the world following the Games at Moscow, it might be possible to arrange quite substantial television coverage.
This is an exercise and a policy undertaken and approved by the whole Government. It would not be right to leave my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for sport to carry the whole burden. Most of the meetings with sporting organisations and athletes were attended by my hon. Friend. I am happy to be able to tell the right hon. Member for Birmingham Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that my hon. Friend is leaving tomorrow for a meeting of the Ministers of Sport of the Council of Europe, at which he will express exactly the same Government approach as I expressed in Geneva.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

DEFENCE SUB-COMMITTEE

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a brief statement. Yesterday the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised a point of order about an article that had appeared in The Guardian relating to the staffing of the Select Committee on Defence. I undertook to look into the matter and to make a statement to the House.
The allocation of duties to particular Clerks is determined by the Clerk of the House and no one else. The article in The Guardian confuses two different bodies—the Defence Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, which became defunct in April 1979, and the Select Committee on Defence, which was nominated in the following November. Some of the matters in the article related to the Sub-Committee and some to the Committee.
I have been assured by the Clerk of the House that there is no correspondence or any indication of any pressure from the Government to have Mr. Cooper removed. To set the factual record straight, the Clerk of the House has asked me to say that so far from being dismissed from his post, Mr. Cooper continued to serve the Defence Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee until the Dissolution of Parliament in April 1979. That Committee, with its Sub-Committees, was not set up again in the new Parliament and in the new structure of Committees that now exists Mr. Cooper occupies a position that is in no way inferior to that which he held in the old structure. Indeed, so far from being demoted, he was promoted last October to the rank of Senior Clerk.

Mr. Winnick: I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your having looked into the matter arising from the press article. Can we take it from your statement that no kind of representations were made by senior officials at the Ministry of Defence regarding the Clerk in question?

Mr. Speaker: I have prepared this statement carefully, and I believe that the independence of this House from the Executive is central to our parliamentary democracy. That was why I undertook so readily to look into this matter. I have looked into it, and I have been given complete assurances by the Clerk of the House that there was no pressure. The House should accept that statement.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I express our gratitude for your prompt action on this matter, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of major constitutional importance and we are very grateful to you for having cleared it up.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the three points of order that appear to be in train in a moment. Then I hope that we can leave the matter.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: May I join with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in expressing our thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for your investigation of what was alleged to concen the independence and intregrity of this House, of which you are the guardian? In the circumstances where an aspersion has been made on the Clerk of the House, who has served us all so well, should not the innuendos made against him be now totally withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker: We shall see what happens tomorrow when we read the newspaper. That is not something that is within my control.

Mr. English: We are all grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, especially for your most recent words. The accusation was not made against the present Clerk of the House, nor does anyone imagine that the present Clerk of the House would have acted in the way in which it was said that a previous Clerk had acted. Mr. Cooper is one of the most intelligent of a group of very intelligent men who serve this House, and I hope that it is made quite clear that in no way has his career been injured by these events.

Mr. Speaker: I say at once that the former Clerk of the House had our full respect and trust in exactly the same way as the present Clerk of the House. The House has been given the assurance that the Clerk in question has been promoted, and that is an indication that his career has not suffered.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The Clerk in question is a military historian. He was dealing with his own subject. He has now been removed from it, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there was in fact a demotion of this man.

Mr. Speaker: It would be a sorry day if hon. Members or I myself sought to put pressure on the Clerk of the House about the way in which his Clerks should be assigned to their Committees. We have been faithfully served, and I believe that we should leave the present system as it is.

MOTIONS AND BILLS (AMENDMENTS)

Mr. Higgins: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. This point arises out of Monday's debate on the Olympic Games, although it is in no way concerned with the substance of that debate. My point is purely procedural. Yesterday the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) raised with you a point about the selection of amendments, and he sought clarification about the selection last Monday. In reply, you pointed out that you were bound by precedent, in as much as when an amendment was tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition all your predecessors had always felt obliged to give priority to that amendment.
You went on to point out that the House did not give you the power to choose another amendment and that if you were to be able to do so there would have to be a motion on the Order Paper empowering you to call another, if it were for the purpose of a Division.
I perhaps misunderstood exactly what you meant by that, Mr. Speaker, and possibly other right hon. and hon. Members are in the same position. I understand that such a motion could only be moved by the Government. That being so, it is for the House to consider whether, on days when both Front Benches have publicly announced that there is to be a free vote, the inhibition on your selecting amendments for a vote is appropriate in those circumstances.
I do not know whether the matter has arisen on previous occasions. The last thing that any of us would wish to do would be to fetter your discretion, but if it is the case that a motion enabling more than one amendment to be called can be moved only by the Government, I hope that on any future occasion, whatever the issue may be, if both Front Benches have announced a free vote the Government will table such a motion so


that your discretion to call both the amendments to be debated and those to be voted on will not be as inhibited as it is at present.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for the way in which he raised his point of order and for giving me notice of it this morning. He is correct. Only the Government can table a motion allowing the House to decide that it would like to have more than one Division at 10 o'clock, or more than one amendment voted on. This procedure was followed quite recently when we voted on a series of motions on conditions of service of hon. Members of the House. This is really a matter to be pursued through normal party channels and the normal channels of the House, when such a motion is required by hon. Members.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Spearing: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not giving you notice of this point of order, but the presence of the Leader of the House indicated to me that there might have been notice of an adjustment to tomorrow's business, which might be welcome. Have you had any such notice, Mr. Speaker, since tomorrow's business is of great topical interest and is important, particularly in relation to the nature of the motions and the questions to be put at particular times?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I have had no notice of any change. If I get it, I will convey the information to the House at once.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I put it to the Leader of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman can only put it to me on a point of order.

Mr. Foot: Following the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), may I explain to you that there are discussions still continuing between the usual channels on this matter? Since the end of last week we have been concerned about the situation arising out of tomorrow's de-

bate, whereby there seems to be a proposal that the debate on the agriculture motion should be taken at the same time as the debate on the budget resolutions.
We have been seeking to secure a better method of dealing with that debate. Discussions have been continuing and may still be continuing. Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the House to be given an opportunity tomorrow, if we have reached a conclusion, to make a statement about business that will enable us to look at the matter afresh? The point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South causes concern to many hon. Members. I hope therefore, that a statement from the Leader of the House tomorrow will be considered in order, even though it deals with the business of that day.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As the House will understand, I am not aware of private discussions taking place between the usual channels. I am simply informed of the result of the conversations.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I was surprised to hear the intervention by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), because discussions have been taking place between the usual channels, and the convention of the House is that they are not referred to until a conclusion is reached.

Mr. Speaker: I refer to the rules of the House. Whilst we must keep within the rules, we must never make them our prisoner. I am saying not that we should break the rules but that, in the interests of the House, from time to time there should be a little—

Mr. Buchan: Flexibility?

Mr. Speaker: "Flexibility" is too strong a word. There should be a little understanding.

Mr. David Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise ordinary Back Benchers about the procedure that is to be followed tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot. Like the hon. Member, I shall wait until tomorrow to see what is forthcoming.

CRUISE MISSILE SITES

Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable persons living within the area of proposed cruise missile sites to vote on their acceptability; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to remedy a serious defect in our democratic system that was created by the Secretary of State for Defence agreeing to the installation of cruise missiles in this country, without troubling first to consult Parliament. Several Labour Members pressed for a debate, as did the Opposition Front Bench—even though somewhat belatedly. A debate took place well after the decision was reached.
However, on the proposed Olympic Games boycott, the Leader of the House adopted a different view. He said on 13 March:
The debate must be arranged before the conference that is to be held on 17 and 18 March…However, it is important that the will of the House should be expressed before the conference takes place."—[Official Report, 13 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1558–9.]
That was said in the context of a suggested debate around midnight, before the Geneva fiasco, on which we have just heard a report.
The installation of 160 cruise missiles is a far more serious matter, and the view of the House was not heard until after the decision had been reached. Even when the House debated the matter, the consensus view of politics that afflicts the Labour leadership from time to time meant that some Labour Whips urged some Labour Members to abstain in the Division. Happily, a healthy number did not, but the closed door conspiracy that exists over nuclear weapons must be broken. My Bill will provide a means of doing that.
The Government are extremely anxious to provide the trade unions with opportunities for ballots. Clause 1(3) of the Employment Bill provides a wide range of opportunities for ballots. But the issue of cruise missiles is immensely more important than the internal arrangements of trade unions. I propose to give the people of the areas in which it is intended to install cruise missiles an opportunity to vote on their acceptability. That is especially important in view of the fact that the missiles are parked on our shores and

will be owned and controlled by the Americans with a single key, with consultation only, and with no right of veto over their use by the Government.
Since, on the admission of the Secretary of State, nuclear conflict would involve only a matter of minutes warning, consultation seems a somewhat academic right, and since the cruise missile areas will be prime targets the people affected should have a voice in and a vote on their future.
My Bill will use as a guide part of clause 6 of the Government's Employment Bill. The acceptance of cruise missiles for an area will recognise that
not less than 80 per cent. of those entitled to vote in the ballot voted in favour
of the siting of the cruise missile or missiles in the relevant area. Connoisseurs of the Employment Bill will recognise an adaptation of a provision of that Bill.
The Bill will also define the relevant area. In a nuclear conflict the United Kingdom would be completely affected, but the cruise missile sites would be more vulnerable in an accidental strike. It is conceivable that an isolated freak incident could arise accidentally. Hence, the relevant area in my Bill would be the area affected by a retaliatory strike of a 5 megaton warhead. All the figures used to define the relevant areas are taken from the Home Office handbook "Nuclear Weapons". Figures in the handbook range up to 20 megaton weapons. Hence, a 5 megaton definition is by no means the most widespread devastation that could apply.
I have also taken figures for ground-burst weapons only. Airburst weapons would result in greater devastation and death.
All people living within three miles of the site would be eligible to vote, as would persons likely to suffer from the heat effects. That would be the main area of fire zone and general destruction of houses and buildings. The area in which heat effects would be felt would be wider. Table 5 on page 24 of the handbook "Nuclear Weapons" gives a diameter of 18½ miles where skin would be charred, 24 miles where skin would be blistered, and 32 miles where skin would be reddened. The effects of 5 megaton bombs on sites at Cambridge and Bury St. Edmunds would overlap. Up to a


total diameter of 32 miles there would also be damage—from total destruction at the centre to light damage at the periphery. In addition, there would be radioactivity over the whole area, varying from lethal to damaging, producing later death.
The total area affected by dangerous, and in many cases lethal, residual radiation would be as large as 2,000 square miles. In view of the potential sacrifice of life, limb and future generations that the people in the areas around those missile sites would be asked to contemplate, the least that the House should do is to ask them whether they want to make that potential contribution.

Mr. John Stokes: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Cryer: My Bill will define the relevant areas, taking all the factors that I have indicated into account. However, a secret ballot must be fair. A returning officer would be appointed to conduct a ballot, and the Bill would give powers to the Home Secretary to issue regulations, subject to affirmative approval of the House, governing the conduct of the ballot. The rules would include registration of organisations conducting a campaign, and allocation of a spending limit to such organisations as part of a total limitation on expenditure. Those hon. Members who campaigned in the EEC referendum well remember how the absence of a spending limit helped to warp that result. Fair allocation of space and time by the press and the media to varying points of view would also be allocated in the regulations. The vote would, in general, be conducted on the lines of a general election campaign, but with the same standards of balance that apply to television and radio applying to newspapers.
A limited period of no more than one month would be allowed for campaign purposes. In the past there has been a suppression of information regarding the possible consequences of nuclear war, either by design or by accident. I refer particularly to the BBC production of "The War Game" which was based entirely on Home Office material and guidance portrayed in a dramatised manner. That production has never been shown on television. My Bill will provide that, if a formal request is made

by a campaigning organisation for a regional television showing of "The War Game", such a request should be granted.
I believe that with information provided on the horrific consequences of nuclear war there would be a massive vote against cruise missiles wherever the Government attempted to locate them. The campaign would bring out into the open the fact that both sides—not just the Warsaw Pact—are armed to the teeth and that the position is worsening.
Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass murder. If the Government genuinely believe in choice, they should support the Bill which will enable people to reject outright the tactics of mass extermination which underpin the deployment of nuclear weapons. If people are given the opportunity that my Bill envisages, that may well start an irresistible movement here, in America and Russia towards diminishing our dependence on these terrible weapons. It will take us one step back from the nuclear brink and from the possibility of the people of this country being turned into a radioactive cinder heap, for a cause for which they were never considered and to which they never gave their consent.
The only certain defence against nuclear weapons is to get rid of them. The certain way of getting them used is to keep insisting on their installation on these shores and elsewhere. It is no chance that questions are being raised about civil defence in the wake of the bellicose comments by the Prime Minister and President Carter. It is becoming transparently clear to more and more people that there is no civil defence. If we are truly serious about freedom and democracy, we should give people in the potential cruise missile areas the democratic right to live free from fear in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Mr. Cryer: Mr. Frank Allaun, Dr. Oonagh McDonald, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. David Stoddart, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Thomas Torney, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Russell Kerr, and myself.

Mr. Stokes: And Mr. Brezhnev.

CRUISE MISSILE SITES

Mr. Bob Cryer accordingly presented a Bill to enable persons living within the area of proposed cruise missile sites to vote on their acceptability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 April and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY BILL

[2nd Allotted Day]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1975

Miss Jo Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 27, line 34, at end insert—
'2A. After subsection (1) of section 47 shall be inserted the following subsection—"(1A) Where a person whose invalidity pension is increased under the preceding subsection becomes entitled to a Category A retirement pension, the weekly rate of the retirement pension shall be increased by the amount by which the invalidity pension would have been increased under the preceding subsection if she had not become so entitled.".'.
This amendment and the following group deal with the question of equality of treatment in the social security system and the implementation of the EEC directive. We had some interesting debates in Standing Committee on a number of our amendments on these subjects, although we got nowhere with them. We had an interesting, not to say, occasionally, amusing debate about the relationship between the words "similar" and "equal", and I and other Labour Members were grateful for the letter that we received from the Under-Secretary of State in which she showed how it was necessary to use "similar" rather than "equal".
In the debate we tried to show that the words were the same, but the hon. Lady demonstrated that "similar" has been used because it is not possible at the moment to use "equal" throughout the system. With great regret, I accept that. I hope that she or the Minister for Social Security will explain—if not in this debate, in a subsequent one on the whole question of equality—the timetable the Government foresee for implementing equality of treatment for women in the social security system.
The amendment deals with the case where a wife is drawing invalidity benefit


and is getting an increase for her handicapped husband, which increase she will lose when she attains the age of 60 when she becomes a retirement pensioner. In Standing Committee the Minister for Social Security said, in referring to this point,
This is perhaps an example of the fact that, whereas we are legislating here for real improvements, there are still rough edges. Again I should like to consider this point in case there is something that we can and should do, but without making any firm commitment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 February 1980; c. 387.]
In the absence of any move from the Government Front Bench showing that the Government are able, if not willing, to improve the situation, we tabled the amendment because we believed that it would ensure that in this limited class of case the increase for the dependent husband would continue after the wife reached retirement age.
I stress that this problem involves a minuscule number of people, but it would help those people if the Government would take another sympathetic look at the matter to try to iron out this inequality. Only a small number are involved, but it is an imposition upon them as well as being a source of resentment. It means that they lose out. I hope that we shall obtain a guarantee from the Under-Secretary or the Minister on this point.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): As the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) said, we had a number of interesting and important debates in Standing Committee on the effect of the EEC directive. We have accepted the directive and on certain points have gone beyond its provisions. The hon. Member quite rightly said that this question was discussed in Committee and that I had indicated that we would look at it again. I have to say with some regret that, having looked at it, I cannot meet the point he makes in the amendment. The amendment would have the effect of allowing the invalidity pensioner who had been receiving the increase for her dependent husband to go on receiving that increase on retirement.
There are two basic arguments against the proposal. First, our social security legislation does not provide for the payment of dependency increases for the

husband of a retirement pensioner. Second, the EEC directive does not require equal treatment in this area, because the married man is not entitled to claim a retirement pension on his wife's contribution, and it would be inappropriate to allow the married woman retirement pensioner to claim the dependency increase for her husband instead.
The Bill provides that a woman receiving sickness benefit can receive an increase for her husband provided his earnings are not more than the amount of the increase. Although this is not required by the directive, it allows her to go on receiving this increase when she becomes entitled to invalidity benefit. Further, it allows a woman invalidity pensioner who does not retire at 60 but whose invalidity pension is thereafter paid at the retirement pension rate to carry on receiving an increase for her dependent husband until the age of 65 if she does not retire earlier.
Where is the dividing line to be drawn? It seems to be consistent with our general legislation that the dividing line for adult dependency is drawn not between sickness benefit and invalidity benefit but between incapacity benefit paid during a person's working life and benefits paid after retirement. We have accepted that increases should continue to be paid during the grey area, if I can use that term, between the ages of 60 and 65 where a woman elects to prolong her working life. But to go further and extend the provision into retirement proper would be to breach the traditional dividing line affecting retirement.
I accept, as I did in Committee, that carrying out this directive inevitably leads to some rough edges. Indeed, if we had accepted the directive as it stood the edges would have been rougher than they are in the way that we propose to legislate. Some edges are left rough, and I see no alternative. We cannot take further major steps at present, nor can we complicate the scheme even further for the sake of the relatively few people who would find themselves in this situation. Therefore, I cannot recommend that the House should accept this amendment.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The Minister's reply was very disappointing. The EEC directive that we signed and which the Government accept calls for implementation. The Government have


put back the implementation to the further possible date, with one exception. This is not an issue that we want to pursue to a vote at present but we shall pursue it further with the Government, not least as regards the invalidity benefit as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and the disabled. We shall be discussing the disabled in more detail a little later. On that basis, we shall not press the amendment to a vote at this stage.

Miss Richardson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 28, line 13, leave out 'a female'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9, in page 28, line 13, after 'residing', insert
'and for the words "the female person's earnings" there shall be substituted the words "the person's earnings".'.

Miss Richardson: These amendments cover the same area as amendment No. 7, although they relate to a different point. They deal with the increases of retirement or invalidity pension for a person of the opposite sex who is caring for the claimant's children. At present the increase is payable only to a male claimant and we seek to make that equal by the insertion of the word "female" in line 13. Amendment No. 9 is consequential.
If these amendments were accepted they would extend the benefit to the female claimant who has a person—to put it in those terms, a man or a woman—looking after her children. In Committee the Minister of State said that he would look again at what he said was the
slight difference in the way that the man and the woman pensioner who is child-caring and might not be married is treated."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 February 1980; c. 382.]
Like the previous amendment, these amendments affect a very small number of people. It is difficult for the Opposition to quantify the number and the cost, but I know from the researches that we have carried out and the advice that have been given, including advice from the Equal Opportunities Commission that only a small number of people would be in-

volved. If the Minister says, as I expect he will, that he is not able to extend the benefits to this further small group of people, I should like him to tell us what the cost would be so that we know the size of the sum.
Although bits of the EEC directive have been implemented in a fuller sense than originally stated—I accept that—and some have not been implemented, the whole idea of it was that women were asking not for special treatment but merely for equal treatment and for the same value for money as men receive from their national insurance contributions. The whole tenor of this debate, as in Committee, has tended to be that women are asking for a privilege in trying to obtain equal treatment whereas they are merely asking for what I believe—and I think the overwhelming majority of people outside would also believe if they knew the difficulty—is a matter of right. They are not putting themselves into a better position than men. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Prentice: Again I am genuinely sorry that I have to give a negative reply. May I say in extenuation that on the next amendment I shall be meeting a point? This is a complicated question, and I accept that I promised in Committee to look at it to see whether we could meet the point.
The effect of the two amendments would be to enable an increase in retirement or invalidity pension to be paid to a person of either sex who had the care of the pensioner's children, subject—if the amendments were carried—to the £45 tapered earnings rule which applies at present to the earnings of a wife of a pensioner. At present a male or female pensioner can get an increase in pension for a woman having care of children for whom he or she receives increases and the woman's earnings do not affect the benefit unless they exceed £45 per week, any earnings from caring for the children being completely ignored.
As drafted, the Bill permits the child-carer to be male or female but allows a male child-carer looking after a pensioner's children to earn only up to the level of the increase payable for him—£14 per week.
The main argument against allowing the benefit of the tapered earnings rule to


male child-carers is that he would then be treated more favourably than the husband of the pensioner. The increase for the husband of an invalidity pensioner is, of course, subject to the £14 earnings rule, while no dependency increase is payable for the husband of a female retirement pensioner.
Thus, the Bill as it stands gives equal treatment as between the female child-carer and the wife of a pensioner who both benefit from the tapered earnings rule. It also ensures that a man caring for a pensioner's children is not treated more favourably than a pensioner's husband. Again, we are talking about rough edges, but it seems to me that no sufficiently strong case has been made on social grounds for the amendment; and the EEC directive, of course, does not require us to make the amendment.
I do not have a figure for the cost, but I accept that, as the hon. Lady says, it would be very small. However, the implication is that if we accepted the amendment we should have to go on—we should certainly be under considerable pressure to do so—to treat husbands of pensioners equally with wives of pensioners. I am advised that at present rates of benefit the cost would be £11 million a year. In other words, if that result followed, it would be very expensive.
I am sorry that for those reasons I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: It is clear that even the most modest proposals from the Opposition are rejected, as in Committee and again yesterday, not simply on grounds of very marginal additional public expenditure—in terms of national figures, £10 million or £11 million is marginal—but now on the ground that acceptance could lead to pressure for further expenditure in six months, a year, two years or three years. That is not a good enough argument. Basically the only case that the Minister advanced was that the amendment could lead to a further rationalisation—I should say a further simplification—of the operation of the scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that there had not been sufficient social

grounds put forward. That is not so. We are not saying that there is a social problem. But there are individual problems, no matter how few. We should remember when we talk about social problems that they are made up of individual cases.
We are naturally becoming a little tired of the Government's approach. I understand what goes on in government when proposals are considered in Departments. Those proposals receive the response in the Department or through contact with Treasury officials: "Do not do this, because it might lead us to be put under pressure, in a year, five years or some indefinite time, to do something else". The answer is that no matter what pressure is put on Ministers or the Treasury, they have the answer in the end, as we have experienced during consideration of the Bill. They simply resist the pressure, saying "We shall not go to the House with proposals for that further expenditure".
Therefore, if the risk of spending another £10 million or £11 million at an unknown time is serious, it is solved simply—not that I wish to advocate this when the time comes—by Treasury Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman or his successor saying "We are not having it". The right hon. Gentleman has got used to doing that on the Bill. Surely when we come to little matters such as this we can have a positive response, instead of being told that in a few years' time it may lead to pressure for further expenditure in another level of the operation of the scheme.
For heaven's sake, let us have a positive response on at least modest proposals.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We on the Opposition Benches are very disappointed by the Minister's response. He suggested that he would be more favourable to us in the next amendment, which gives a concession of seven days on a question of appeals. But the EEC protocol on the similar treatment of women, as opposed to equal treatment, was signed on the basis that implementation must take place within five years. It is amazing that our Government have decided to take the maximum time to implement the necessary regulations.
It is not that Government are saying that they cannot afford the small amount involved by next week or even in November. They say that they cannot afford it in 1983 or probably in 1984. They are admitting that their economic policies will not bear fruit by then.
I realise that it is administratively convenient to have dealt with the regulations in the Bill, but if the Minister cannot commit money that far into the future now, can he not give us an indication that the House will have an opportunity to consider the matter again before the regulations come into effect? I should have expected that he at least would try to claim that the Government's economic package would result in there being enough money available for small improvements in 1983 and 1984.
If the right hon. Gentleman must tell the House that he expects his Government's economic policies will be so disastrous that they can offer no hope of minor improvements of this kind by the time the regulations are introduced, he should consider whether it is worth continuing to support that Government. If the Government will not go along with the regulations, that seems to be a clear admission that their economic strategy is failing.
If the Minister says that we must wait to see the outcome, will he tell us how the House will have an opportunity further to discuss the regulations before they come into effect, so that we can take into account whether the economic strategy has succeeded? If it has, there should be a small sum available to remove these anomalies.

Mr. Prentice: I have faith in the Government's economic policy. I think that it will bear fruit.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is right in saying that our implementation of the directive is a year or two away. As has been the position for a year or two, we shall probably continue to have a Social Security Bill every Session. Therefore, every hon. Member will have opportunities to move amendments. What the answer will be, and whether the House will give this matter priority over other matters, I do not know, but the door is not shut for ever. It will be open to the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member who

wishes to do so to return to the question in the future, possibly in advance of the period when the regulations take effect.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Prentice: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 29, line 40, at beginning insert '21 days'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendments Nos. 11 and 72.

Mr. Prentice: I am glad to be able to meet a point put to me in Committee. It may or may not be considered a coincidence that this is a totally inexpensive amendment, the purpose of which is to extend from 21 days to 28 the period for making an appeal to a national insurance local tribunal against a decision of an insurance officer.
The Bill as drafted makes some improvement. The 21-day appeal period had always in practice been operative from the date on which the insurance officer's decision was notified to the claimant, but a recent decision of the National Insurance Commissioner laid down that that was not strictly in accordance with the law, and that the operative date should be the date on which the decision was made. Therefore, the Bill as it was originally drafted, and as it is now before the House, already made some improvement, in that it restored the law to what we thought it had been, in counting the 21 days from the date on which the decision was notified rather than the date on which it was formally made.
In Committee there was some confusion, in which I must confess that I shared, about whether decisions were notified by first-class or second-class post. I can assure hon. Members that they are notified by first-class post, conferring whatever benefit that amounts to these days. However, hon. Members still felt anxiety that the 21 days might be insufficient.
We envisaged an appointed day in November. That will allow time for forms to be reprinted. It will also coincide with the various adjudication changes that are made in the Bill. Every hon. Member will agree that a time limit on appeals is necessary. Successive Governments have taken that view and the House has endorsed it whenever it


has considered this subject. A time limit avoids the possibility of indefinite opportunities for appeal. However, we wish to be sure that we are being fair to claimants. In practice there will not be a large addition to the number of appeals. The number of appeals falling between the 21 to 28 day period will be small.
It is important to do justice, and to be seen to do justice, to those who feel that they have a case for appeal. I therefore commend the amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We welcome the fact that the Government have at last made a concession, even if that concession represents only seven days and apparently costs the Government nothing. These amendments deal only with national insurance appeals to local tribunals. Will the Minister ensure that it applies equally to supplementary benefit and FIS appeals? Such a process would appear logical.
Perhaps the Minister could give people a little more information. He has assured us that the forms that notify the decision are sent by first-class post. I accept that those forms inform people that they have a right to appeal. However, the form is not as helpful as it might be. Many people do not know how to make an appeal. Perhaps more guidance should be made available by bodies such as the citizens advice bureaux. That would help those who do not know how to begin to make an appeal.
Some people may make appeals because they are annoyed about the decision. They may then get cold feet and fail to turn up at the hearing. Many people put in an appeal and then either withdraw it or decide to ignore the system and to try to teach it a lesson. The latter do not bother to turn up. Others have every intention of turning up, but get cold feet. They are frightened of representing themselves and of the difficulties involved. If more advice and guidance were given, it would be helpful.
I realise that great difficulties are involved. The availability of advice in different areas varies widely. However, perhaps claimants could get advice from the local office about how to make an appeal. That would be useful. Indeed, such a scheme might save the Govern-

ment money. If people are better advised, it may reduce the number of appeals. People would appeal only if they thought they had a genuine chance of winning. They would not make an appeal simply as a criticism of the system. I hope that the Minister will consider that point. I also hope that the extension from 21 days to 28 days will apply to supplementary benefit and FIS appeals. It is only logical to have some uniformity.

Mr. Prentice: I assure the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that the legislation will apply to FIS and supplementary benefit appeals as well as to national insurance appeals. Forms sent to claimants state clearly that there is a right of appeal. However, as a result of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I shall look at the form again to see whether any amendment is needed. I shall write to him on that point.
As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, many sources of advice are open to claimants. Obviously the availability of advice varies from area to area and from claimant to claimant. It is not humanly possible for the House to ensure uniformity of advice. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would like a claimant to make an appeal if he has the slightest scintilla of doubt that he is entitled to something that has been turned down by the insurance officer, or by the benefit officer.
I have attended appeal tribunals as a trade union officer and as a Member of Parliament. I have found the chairmen and members of local tribunals extremely helpful. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that tribunals assist claimants in every way. I do not think they do so merely because a Member of Parliament or some other representative is in the room. They have a general record of being helpful. I shall take this opportunity to pay public tribute to them for the valuable work that they do on behalf of the community, and on behalf of claimants.

Mr. Bennett: I agree that tribunals are helpful. However, many of those who would like to appeal do not know that. They are put off. A constituent who came to see me at my advice bureau one Saturday morning had been put off because he


had been told that the appeal would be held in the local town hall—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is not permited to make two speeches on Report. If he is making an intervention, that is fair enough.

Mr. Bennett: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had thought I was making an intervention. I thought that the Minister had given way.
People are put off from attending tribunals. They do not know that they will be treated as sympathetically as the Minister has described.

Mr. Prentice: I thought that I had sat down, but perhaps I can change my mind and treat the hon. Gentleman's remarks as an intervention.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, people will react differently. We cannot legislate for every situation. However, all hon. Members would wish to encourage the view that I attempted to express a few moments ago, namely, that the appeal machinery exists and should be used. The public should be encouraged to put their case to the test, if they feel that they have one. The more hon. Members and other active members of society can persuade claimants of that, the better.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 29, line 41, at beginning insert '28 days'.[Mr. Prentice.]

Clause 3

AMENDMENTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS ACT 1975

Mr. Prentice: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 6, leave out lines 37 and 38.
Out of the goodness of my heart and my willingness to accept Opposition amendments, I agreed with the amendment that was proposed in Committee by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). This amendment is consequential upon that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

MATERNITY GRANT

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 9, line 29, after 'residence' insert 'and presence'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 45, after 'date', insert: 'not being later than 17th November 1980'.

Mrs. Chalker: As the House will know, the Government were glad to accept the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) in Committee. It makes the maternity grant non-contributory. As the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) will know, there has been a convention that non-contributory benefits are payable on the satisfaction of certain prescribed conditions. That has always applied to attendance allowances, noncontributory invalidity pensions, invalid care allowances and so on. Those conditions are "residence and presence" of the person claiming in this country. The new clause as moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon did not include the words "and presence". Therefore, amendment No. 13 adds the words to the clause.
Although the residence and presence conditions might be referred to under the heading of "residence", I gather that there needs to be power in the primary legislation to prescribe conditions as to residence and presence. Therefore, the addition of the words "and presence" in line 29 after "residence" will fit in with the other aspects of non-contributory benefits payable under the same conditions.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should like to speak to amendment No. 14.
The Minister explained that the Government had graciously accepted a proposal from a Conservative Back Bench Member, but almost implied that the hon. Gentleman had got it wrong. She should have said that her advisers had given the hon. Gentleman the wrong advice. The Minister went on to say that the Government had been generous in accepting the suggestion to make the maternity grant non-contributory. She


forgot to include the qualification that it will not be implemented this year, next year or the year after. It is another example of "Never-never land". I believe that last night the Government mentioned 1983.

Mrs. Chalker: 1982.

Mr. Bennett: I am pleased to hear that.

Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend should not be so pleased. It is November 1982, which is effectively 1983.

Mr. Bennett: It will be a long time before it comes into operation.
If there is a good case for introducing the non-contributory benefit in 1982 or 1983, why not do it now? The delay will spread confusion. People will assume that it takes effect now. The Government will have to take the trouble to explain that the regulations will not take immediate effect.
The change is to be welcomed, but moving it so far into the future detracts from it. It will be difficult for the Government to explain that they believe that the benefits should be non-contributory but that will not be introduced for some time. Our amendment would have introduced the measure in November with the rest of the upratings.
What is the difference in cost between introducing non-contributory benefits now and at a future date? Why is it necessary to save that small amount of money?
During the debate on the Private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) a strong case was made out that improving the maternity grant and therefore the mother's care would save the Government money. The number of children born handicapped would be reduced. By improving care only marginally, and cutting down the need to care for three or four such children over their lifetime, we would recoup the cost involved. I believe that the Minister said that the cost of caring for one severely handicapped child was £250,000. The measure would pay for itself over and over again if, by better natal care, one or two fewer children were born handicapped. The Minister should consider making the measure operative now.
I can only assume that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) is so disgusted that the Government only offered him a small piece of cake that he is not here to seize his opportunity to push the Government. The Government should be prepared to accept amendment No. 14.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) has had a wretched time. He was helped by the Government with his new clause, and prepared a long speech to move it in Committee. Unfortunately, through lack of time the new clause was taken formally. It now appears that it was drafted incorrectly. The hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier, and we should not give the impression that he has not attended the debates. He has been assiduous in attending the debates in Committee and on Report. He addressed the House forcefully last night on child benefit. He looked forward to the implementation of this modest measure at a modest cost, which perhaps the Minister will confirm is only about £1 million. The hon. Gentleman then discovered that the Government did not plan to implement the measure until November 1982.
We have achieved little in the long hours spent on the Bill. When the Bill is complete, I believe that it will have taken about 130 hours. The Government have made little or no monetary concessions, which is extraordinary in a Bill of this nature. We have just wrung out of the Government a concession over the number of days for appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) moved an amendment last night to increase the maternity grant from £25 to £40. The Government even resisted that modest amendment on grounds of cost.
It is deception by the Government to delay this measure until November 1982. They are pushing it as far ahead as possible. The same applies to the EEC recommendations. With one exception, the implementation date is as far ahead as possible. The equal opportunities provisions are as far ahead as 1984.
This small and welcome concession will benefit married and unmarried women. Surely it should take priority over many of the Government's other expenditures, which will be spelt out next


Wednesday. The Government are taking a parsimonious attitude, which should be highlighted.
In regional press reports no date is given for the non-contributory benefit. People possibly imagine that the date has fallen off the linotype, and are not aware that the date is November 1982. We are right to be dissatisfied with the Government.

Miss Richardson: The Government's reaction to all the amendments tends to reflect their meanness, and this is the meannest reaction of all. The measure would cost so little. We have been talking of sums of £20 million to £30 million, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said on the previous amendment that £10 million or £11 million was peanuts.
The cost involved here is £1·5 million—perhaps less. That cannot be the reason for the delay. I assume that the reason must be that the Government want to make the change administratively simple by putting the payment on to the computer at the child benefit centre and that that cannot be done for another two years. If that is the reason, it is even worse, because 60,000 women who would have qualified for the grant on a non-contributory basis will not receive it.
5 pm
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) has entered the Chamber. On this amendment, perhaps we ought to refer to him as our hon. Friend. He is welcome and I hope that he will have something to say in the debate.
If 1982 has been chosen solely for administrative convenience—and I do not believe that the cost can be the reason for the delay—that is ridiculous. If the Government claim that they are delaying the implementation of the change because of the cost involved, they should remember that £300,000 of the extra expenditure of £1 million or so will be offset by a saving in supplementary benefit payments to some mothers who do not at present qualify for the grant.
I do not see why the grant cannot be paid through the post by Giro cheques. Why must we wait for the system to be moved on to the computer at the child benefit centre? I hope that the Govern-

ment will tell us the reason for the delay. If it is the cost involved, they must be the meanest Government this country has ever known.
One of my constituents rejoiced at the fact that the hon. Member for Abingdon had tabled the new clause in Committee and asked why I had not done so. I explained that the hon. Gentleman beat me to it. My constituent, like many other people, expected the new system to be brought in immediately. When I told her sadly that it would not be introduced until 1982, she said "I suppose that they are saving it up for the election." I am sure that nothing is further from the minds of the Government, but the timing could be seen by some as a small carrot to attract a few votes.
I hope that the Government will see sense. They have gone a little way towards meeting us and making the lives of 60,000 women a year a little easier. For goodness sake, let them introduce the change this year and not in 1982.

Mr. Freeson: I support my hon. Friends and, I trust, the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), who introduced the new clause in Committee, in urging that the Government should consider carefully what has been said. No great financial issue is at stake here. The Government must know that.
I hope that at long last there will be a positive response on a matter that involves only marginal expenditure but is significant to the individuals concerned. We await with interest to learn whether we are to get that positive response.

Mr. Tom Benyon: May I first apologise for not having been here at the start of the debate? I was researching in the Library on a matter that I hope to raise later.
We are all grateful that the Government have accepted the proposed change to enable 60,000 women a year, who would not otherwise have qualified for the maternity grant, to be able to receive it. That is a source of pleasure to Members on both sides of the House.
I have to admit that I am disappointed that we cannot implement the new scheme quicker. The women involved will receive a grant that is a derisory sum. It will hardly pay for nappies, talcum power and a pot for the child.


Such women are the most disadvantaged in our society. They include the wives of long-term prisoners, girls of 16 and under who have not worked and the wives of students who are out of work. By definition, as they do not pay national insurance, they will be women in most need of the grant.
I am sad that it will be two years before we can implement the new scheme. The cost of £1·25 million to £1·3 million is small in global terms, but I understand that there are administrative problems in introducing the scheme earlier and that it is also not possible to implement it before 1982 on grounds of cost.
As a Conservative Member who fought the election on the basis of getting inflation under control, it does not lie well in my mouth to weasel about the Government's action and to be disloyal to them when they are holding the line against inflation. There are problems in making concessions, however small, and in listening with too much enthusiasm to the siren voices of Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), to spend more and to do so quickly.
Let us be frank. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than for the Government to introduce the new scheme in November this year. That cannot be done on grounds of administration and cost. I mind that and I believe that my hon. Friends mind it as well. All Ministers are having battles with their colleagues at the Treasury. I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services well in his battles. He will not always win, but I am sure that he is as concerned as I am that it will be two years before the non-contributory maternity grant can be introduced.
I do not want to make a cheap political point, but at least the new scheme is to be introduced. There was plenty of time under Labour Governments, who have been in power for 11 of the past 15 years, when it could have been done, but was not. I accept what the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said about Governments being able to get only so much of their programme carried out, that the proposal was included in Labour's manifesto at the last election and that,

although the previous Government had made no obvious provision for it, the cost would have been met out of contingency reserves.
It is sad that the new scheme cannot be introduced earlier, but at least it is to be introduced.

Mrs. Chalker: By leave of the House, I shall respond, because I did not comment on amendment No. 14. I agree that we need to make clear that the commitment given in accepting the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) was that the maternity grant would be made non-contributory from November 1982. I have listened carefully, not only to what has been said today but what has been put to me outside for many years. This is an important provision to help mothers who do not satisfy the contribution conditions. The problem about that improvement is that it costs money. As hon. Members have said, about 60,000 more women will be getting the grant each year once it becomes non-contributory. We must meet that cost. We can meet it only if we make corresponding administrative savings. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, for whose remarks I am most grateful, is right in saying that we have not only to make administrative adjustments to cope with this matter, but we need the resources to do so.
The only way to devise a method of paying this benefit in the conditions under which this Government have to work is to make the award and payment of the grant centrally rather than through local offices and to make it through the computer operation. I understand the disappointment of hon. Members. I wish I could do what they are asking. I cannot, at this moment, do that. If this matter is to be conducted properly and we are to get it right, we have to operate the maternity grant and child benefit together through the child benefit centre at Washington. That will mean a substantial change in the administration of the benefit, even a small benefit, such as the grant. This will take time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, there are operational as well as financial constraints. I accept that the House and people outside are most concerned. I cannot make any promises


about an earlier introduction but I can give the House an assurance that if it proves possible to reduce the time needed to make the necessary preparations, we shall reduce that time. On one point, however, I must be firm. The change in the rules has to be achieved at no cost. That means a change in the method of administration.
While I accept the genuineness with which many people have commented on the fact that it is regrettable that we cannot make the grants non-contributory until November 1982, we have taken this decision within one year of taking office. It was a decision that the previous Government, until the time of the last election—when they wrote it into their manifesto—refused to countenance. It ill becomes the Opposition Front Bench to criticise us for the speed at which we are acting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, the Opposition did nothing about the grant during the last five years. It became part of their election manifesto only in April 1979.

Mr. Freeson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may take up the hon. Lady's last point. The difference is that whatever the failings of the previous Government in carrying through a welfare programme, covering this and other matters that I would wish to have seen done and still wish to see done, the failings were on particular issues in a context of widening social services and welfare provision, and did not take the form of a major contraction such as the country is now experiencing and will experience even further.
It is one thing for a Government seeking to establish a widening of provision, stage by stage, in welfare and public service, to say "We cannot carry out A and B yet, although we intend to come to them because we are busy dealing with other improvements." That cannot be the argument of the present Government. They are contracting back on the first stages that have already been reached. A fine example occurred last night on pension increases. Many instances can be quoted. If there was time to discuss all the matters that the Opposition have placed on the Order Paper, further sharp examples in housing and social services could be quoted. It is not good enough for the Minister to put this argument.
5.15 pm
The hon. Lady is putting the argument to members of the Opposition who were Members of a Government who expanded provision generally across the board but had not reached certain items. Now there is a Government doing precisely the opposite. No hon. Member can, surely, accept that, purely on operational grounds, this proposal cannot be undertaken. We listened carefully to the hon. Lady's carefully-chosen words. She told the House that the Government must meet the additional cost involved in accepting the hon. Gentleman's amendment—endorsed by all sides of the House—by administrative cost savings. I think those were her words.
The hon. Lady went on to repeat that point by saying that this improvement must be achieved at no cost. That remark has much deeper implications than the issue before the House. I wish we had known it last night when we were debating maternity grant improvements. The implication of that statement, if taken literally, is that we can look forward, in the next two, three or four years, to no improvement in the maternity grant. We hoped that, perhaps, the matter would be left open, although we lost our moderate proposals last night to increase the amount from £30 to £45. The literal implication of the hon. Lady's words means that we can look forward over the next three years to no improvement in the maternity grant. What does that mean?

Mr. Frank Field: I was puzzled by the Minister's statement. In one respect, the statement is meaningless. Even if the grants are not increased over the next three or four years, as my right hon. Friend says, how will that be marked up as saving so to introduce the reform at nil cost? I understand the Minister to mean that there would have to be a saving in other parts of the social security scheme to pay for this. Or did the Minister mean that there had to be some marvellous administrative savings to cover the cost?

Mr. Freeson: Ministers have received instructions from the Treasury. They have been told that they would be allowed only to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) if they could show that by the centralisation of maternity grants


with the child benefit provision, there would be equivalent administrative savings. That is not what was stated precisely, but that is what has happened. There is no willingness to use new money and contingency money. The implications for maternity grant generally are significant and worrying. Major implications, possibly, for what we were debating last night, are now revealed. There is no intention to consider improving the maternity grant levels over the next two or three years. If there is, the hon. Lady's words cannot be taken literally. There must be additional expenditure.
I return to the question of the cost that would be involved. It is obviously right to seek to reduce the cost of the administration of benefits. If that can be done by November 1982, or earlier, as the hon. Lady suggested, all well and good. No one will argue on policy grounds about that. If, however, the date is to be November 1982 and not earlier, the Government are saying that for two to two and a half years beforehand, there will be an additional £1 million to £1¼ million expenditure, in cash terms, until that cost is absorbed into administrative improvements.
Are we really being told that this country cannot even afford that amount over two years and two Budgets to bring forward the introduction of non-contributory maternity grant? By November 1982, we are told that there will be an equivalent cost saving. It is for two years only. Our amendment asks that about £2½ million should be spent in the coming two years. After that, we are told, it will be absorbed into administrative cost savings. That is what is at issue. Is it not a shame that, by the time it is introduced, the real value of the maternity grant will be about £20 at present inflation rates? Let us assume the best, that inflation will be only 10 per cent. soon. I hope that it will be lower but we would be crying in the wind if we thought that we could achieve that Government Members support moves to do something about the maternity grant and help those who are not in receipt of it now, but the Government say that £2½ million cannot be spent in the next two years.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Brent,

East (Mr. Freeson) said. Many of my hon. Friends would like to see an uprating in the maternity grant. The main difference is that we believe that a precondition of increasing expenditure on the social services is to find ways of paying for it, as opposed to printing money. That is why the inflation rate is so high. The needs in many other areas are as great as the updating of the maternity grant. Improvements need to be made in child benefit, the death grant and assistance for the disabled. Emotional speeches can be made about them all. It is not good enough to say that all we have to do is to raise taxes. We must create the wealth first.

Mr. Freeson: I resist the temptation to enter a general discussion on economic and financial policy, although major social implications are involved. Nobody denies that the issue partly involves the creation of wealth. However, the real issue revolves round how a society chooses to use its resources.
The Government chose to redirect resources in their last Budget to the upper end of incomes on a massive scale. I am speaking of people who are down the line but pretty well-off. I include Members of Parliament. We received benefits in the last Budget which should have gone to the people about whom we are talking today. A precondition must be a willingness to apply resources in a civilised fashion. We are moving away from that.
We have had assurances about 1982. However, that assurance is not in the Bill. We want to know why. I accept the sincerity of the Under-Secretary of State. However, we know that events can change unless Parliament legislates. Anything can happen in government. Something is happening about child benefit, as I expect we shall learn next week. Anything can happen to undermine the Under-Secretary of State's genuine intention. I do not attempt to forecast her ministerial or political position in 1982 if her best intentions on this and other issues about which she has spoken warmly do not come to fruition. She will have to judge at the time.
There is no date in the Bill. There is no guarantee that the date promised by the Minister will be applied. The Minister can change; the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the composition of


the Government can change. I know that there is a genuine intention, but my main anxiety is that false reasons have been given. It would have been simple for the Government to spend £2½ million for two years by introducing Girocheque payments in the meantime and absorbing the additional costs in November 1982. We are disappointed. It was a good move which has gone sour unnecessarily at the hands of the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

AMENDMENTS OF SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS ACT 1976

Mr. Field: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 31, line 24, at end insert:
'(aa) in subsection (1) after the word "Britain" there shall be inserted the words: "who has a dependent child or who is".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 41, in page 46, line 41, after 'Britain' insert:
'who has a dependent child or who is'.

Mr. Field: We hope that the Government will accept this small amendment. Under the Bill schoolgirls aged 16 years and over will be able to claim benefit in their own right. Amendment No. 16 seeks to allow schoolgirls under the age of 16 to draw benefit in their own right. We seek further clarification on the partial assurances that the Under-Secretary of State gave in Committee. One of the more valid arguments involved girls who are under or over 16 who become pregnant. That may be undesirable but, sadly, it happens. In the Bill there are two classes of schoolgirl mothers—those who can claim benefit in their own right and those who cannot.
It is important to draw the Government's attention to other provisions elsewhere in the Bill which have a bearing on the welfare and livelihood of the youngest mothers in our society. Under the present Act, if the parents of a schoolgirl mother do not receive benefit themselves the young mother might be eligible for an exceptional needs payment. However, exceptional needs payments are to be withdrawn from those who are not in receipt of benefit.
Under the Act, mothers under the age of 15 receive a little help from the Supplementary Benefits Commission, not an allowance in their own right but an exceptional needs payment which they will lose if their parents are working. They will not lose it if the young mother's parents are on supplementary benefit because the parents will be able to claim for their daughter and their grandchild.
We seek clarification on the comments which the Under-Secretary made in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) asked how we could defend a situation where two schoolgirl mothers at the same school—one over 16 and one under 16—receive different benefits. One will receive a benefit in her own right and the other will not. If that girl's parents are in work, she will not even receive help from the Commission. The Under-Secretary of State said:
I accept the force of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I cannot promise to meet his points, but I promise to have a look at them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E; 12 February 1980; c. 557–8.]
Dr. Johnson said that the prospect of being hanged in the morning concentrated the mind wonderfully. Similarly with amendments on Report it often helps the Minister's mind wonderfully to recall partial undertakings given in Committee if a relevant amendment is tabled by the Opposition. That is why amendment No. 16 stands on the Amendment Paper.

Mrs. Chalker: It seems that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and I are having a re-run of our debates in Committee and the hon. Gentleman is right. I said that I would have a look at this issue. I am well aware that many Labour Members as well as groups such as the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Council for One-Parent Families have argued forcefully for a long time that supplementary benefit should be payable to young mothers under the age of 16.
We had a long debate on this subject in Committee and I have since written to the hon. Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on this and other issues. I hope that I have now managed to clear up a few points which I was then unable to deal with. We were debating the issue at 6 am on that day.
In Committee the hon. Member for Stockport, North asked whether a mother who became 16 during her last year at school would qualify. The answer is "Yes." Benefit will in future be payable for her own requirements as well as for those of her child or children. At present the Supplementary Benefits Commission meets the requirements of her children only and benefit is paid through the grandparents as at present.
I listened to the hon. Member for Birkenhead and I am sympathetic to the plight of the very young mother, but we remain convinced that it would not be right to pay supplementary benefit to people under 16. We must remember that in any scheme there must be a point of entry and the age of 16 has been the entry point for supplementary benefit ever since the scheme was introduced. It was the same with its predecessor, the national assistance scheme, from 1948.
The review team said in "Social Assistance" that the basic rule should remain. The vast majority of those responding to the review agreed. They did not dissent from the view that the entry age should be at 16.

Mr. Field: When we in the CPAG responded to the document we did not know that the one form of help which could be given to the very young mother—the exceptional needs payment—especially if her parents were in work, would be withdrawn.

Mrs. Chalker: I accept that the hon. Gentleman may not have linked the two aspects of reform of the supplementary benefit system together with "Social Assistance". I think that it became quite clear in the consideration of that report, and many of the submissions received as a result of the report, that not only were matters concerning exceptional needs payments—to be discussed in later amendments—likely to affect this sort of issue but that the whole of the supplementary benefit system was inextricably inter-linked. Therefore, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make the comment that he has.
If we are to lower the age at which a young person can claim supplementary benefit, where should we stop? How low should the age be? I find myself in great difficulty. Some people would say that

any young mother, whatever her age, should be able to claim and that the age should perhaps come down to 13, 12 or even 11 years. I believe that that would make a nonsense of the system. There must be a limit, and I still believe that the appropriate limit is 16 bearing in mind all the assurances which I gave in Committee and which I have given since by letter.
If a young mother is under the age of 16, benefit can obviously be obtained for her through her parents if her parents are on supplementary benefit. I suggest that it is in those cases that the greatest need lies.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Under-Secretary spoke of the area of greatest need. Let us consider the case of the family whose income is only £2 or £3 a week above supplementary benefit level. Even if there is a baby in that household, the family still do not qualify. Their need might be far greater than that of almost any other group, because it is the income of the grandparents that counts and not the income of the young mother.
Such a girl might find herself at school alongside another girl six months older who is in exactly the same circumstances and who receives benefit in her own right.

Mrs. Chalker: There is always difficulty in establishing a dividing line. We have said already that if a family was in low-paid work and entitled to family income supplement there would be an entitlement for the grandchild. I know that the hon. Member for Birkenhead accepts that. However, there must be a limit below which supplementary benefit cannot be claimed. I concede that there will be difficulties in some cases. However, if we lowered the age to 15 the same difficulties would remain at the margin as are marginally present at the moment. At a time when we are trying hard to simplify the rules covering supplementary benefit, every special difference that we create will make the situation more difficult and lead us back towards the problems that have developed over the years as the supplementary benefit system has become more and more refined almost to the point of dealing with individual cases.
I realise that I am unable to meet the wishes of the hon. Members for Birkenhead and Stockport, North. I do not expect to on this issue. I am trying to


explain that I believe for a young mother under 16 with a small child the entitlement to benefit should be through her parents. There is another aspect which has been mentioned and which I know is not accepted by many hon. Members. I think it is right to put it on the record because a sufficient number of commentators have suggested that to pay supplementary benefit to young people below the age of 16 might encourage the parting of a young mother from her parents. I know that the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) does not accept this, but there is a sizeable number of people who have said that this is a valid argument and that we should seek to encourage a young mother to stay with her family.
Although the cost of the amendment is not—

Mr. James Dempsey: As the Under-Secretary develops her reply, can she supply any information or figures showing the cost of such a scheme if we pay benefit to expectant mothers under the age of 16?

Mrs. Chalker: This is not just a matter of costs in relation to expectant mothers. We are concerned with the costs involved with young mothers under 16 and their child dependants. The cost would be about £1 million.
I was about to say that that cost would not be high compared with that of other amendments. However, there is a greater problem. If we bring the right to entitlement to below the age of 16, we shall find that more and more pressure is brought to persuade us to change other rules. With the simplification of the system, I do not believe that, because there is an entitlement for young mothers to claim through parents where parents are on supplementary benefit and the possibility that families on family income supplement can claim for the grandchild, this amendment is the best way to handle what is a social problem. I feel that we should seek better ways of solving the problem and I hope that the House will, therefore, reject the amendment.

Mr. Freeson: The trouble is that the Minister has not even suggested the better ways either in Committee or today.
We understand the anxieties which are expressed in different quarters about the

alteration which has been proposed. I cannot accept that administrative convenience should be the deciding factor—namely, that it might lead to pressure to change other rules. As a rule of thumb statement, I put it to the Minister, if what we propose in the amendment for the under-16 mother were accepted—that is, that she should qualify for supplementary benefit—it would be possible to apply in this circumstance what I would describe as a circumstantial rule: that mothers should qualify as appropriate for supplementary benefit without an age bar. In other words, in this respect we should move away from the age rule and say that it shall be a circumstantial rule. My suggestion is that we maintain the 16-plus rule with the exclusion or qualification that mothers under the age of 16 shall, without an age bar, qualify.
The Minister said that this is not important in the end, because if girls under that age are living with their parents and those parents qualify for supplementary benefit, appropriate additions can be allowed for.
First, I say, I think correctly—I speak without having checked the details in the period since the Bill left Committee—that that would not produce an equivalent supplementary benefit in line with that which would arise if an individual supplementary benefit were allowed for in the rules. That is significant to start with.
The Minister then said that if the parents are not on supplementary benefit but are on family income supplement, as grandparents they could qualify for the appropriate addition for a grandchild. Three points arise. First, even where they would qualify, it would be at a lower rate than would be paid by way of supplementary benefit to the mother and child. Secondly, it does not allow for provision for the young mother—only for the grandchild. Thirdly, the rate of take-up of family income supplement is very low. I have forgotten what the figure is. I think that it is about 80 per cent.; it may have risen recently.
The criteria to qualify for family income supplement are low. I do not intend at this stage of our proceedings to go into the details. Many people on low incomes do not qualify for FIS. That has been one of the problems about take-up in the past. For those reasons, I do


not think that we can say that the alternatives are satisfactory.
My suggestion—that we create a circumstantial rule, a mother and child rule, which may be the only exception from the 16-plus rule for qualifying for supplementary benefit—would and could work and should be adopted as a matter of principle and practice.
In Committee, the Minister broadly accepted the force of my argument that it is nonsense to have a girl of 16 giving birth to a child and qualifying for supplementary benefit and another girl of 15 in the same school—possibly in the same class—in similar circumstances not qualifying for supplementary benefit.
The Minister referred to the social implications raised by commentators—those who responded to the review team's report. The suggestion was that, were we to alter the rules so that mothers under the age of 16 qualified for supplementary benefit, we would be weakening the prospect of them staying with their families. I have yet to see evidence in support of that suggestion.
We all to a large extent speak circumstantially on the basis of our own impressionistic experience of cases. There is some evidence that many girls in that situation not only have weak links with their families, but are already living apart from their parents. Some do not have any family connections at all, as I know from cases with which I have had to deal in my constituency—cases which have to be dealt with by social workers and others. The Minister must know that a large proportion within this minority already have very weak links with their families and get little support emotionally, socially, physically and financially from their parents or their families generally.
5.45 pm
Therefore, that argument—that by giving them the support that supplementary benefit would give would weaken family links—is weak in itself. There is evidence that, at least in some parts of London, the links have already been broken.
I have spoken at greater length than I intended, because I expected a more positive response from the Minister. This is not a question of public expenditure. I realise that there are implications, but

I hope that I am right in believing that is not the reason for the Government refusing to change their mind on this matter. They have stood by their position, although they have reflected upon it. Whatever we say, we shall not get them to change their position, but I hope that what we say in this brief exchange, compared with the lengthier one that we had in Committee between 5 am and 6 am—not till 6 am in the morning on 12 February—will lead the Government to reflect further. They have the capacity, under the powers in the Bill, to change the regulations. It is clear that they will not do so tonight. We stand by our views and hope that they will change their mind if not today certainly when they look at the regulations in future and see that there is strength in our argument.
I fear that the central reason for objecting to the change is a pre-conception—a prejudice—about the age rule. I repeat, there should be a circumstantial rule—a mother and child rule—which may be the only breach of the 16-plus rule. I suggest that the Minister should reconsider the matter in that light.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In some ways I should like to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in pressing the amendment, but in other ways I have reservations. I have spent some time thinking carefully about this matter since the Bill left Committee. I think that the Government ought to look carefully at support for both the young girl with a child and the expectant mother in this age group. It is not satisfactory to say, as my right hon. Friend suggested, that the test should be the mother with the child. I think that we must take into account the expectant mother as well.
I am concerned that the Government are taking away from the school-leaver the right to benefit until a set time after leaving school. There could be a serious problem for the expectant mother who leaves school, possibly at Whitsun or Easter, and is told that she is not entitled to supplementary benefit until the end of the next holidays. That can be 12 weeks if it is the end of the summer holidays. A girl who is seven or eight months pregnant will obviously not be able to search for a job in that time and she will not be entitled to supplementary benefit.
The Government should consider carefully all the regulations which affect girls in that age group, whether she be a 15-year-old with a child, a 16-year-old with a child, or an expectant mother. The Government must ensure that they have an adequate income and are not dependent upon parental approval or disapproval. Girls in that age group could face great difficulties if their income were paid to the parent or grandparent who, because they disapproved of their behaviour, withheld that income from them or did not spend it on them.
Another problem arises where the parent or grandparent has little money. A girl may experience difficulty arising from a mixture of too little resources and parental disapproval.
I hope that the Government will agree to consider the whole issue thoroughly. If they will not accept the amendment, I hope that they will agree to deal with the problem at some later stage, possibly in another place. They must provide for the 15-year-old mother with a child and the expectant mother who, because of the change in the regulations for claiming benefit for school leavers, find themselves without sufficient support. A position may occur where such a person may leave school at Easter but is not entitled to claim supplementary benefit until 1 September, although she may be seven or eight months pregnant and in no position to seek work to earn the means to provide for herself.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move Government amendment No. 18, in page 32, line 36 leave out 'receiving' and insert
'entitled or would if he satisfied prescribed conditions he entitled to'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 19, in page 32, line 36 after 'allowance' insert
'or to whom section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 applies'.

Government amendment No. 43.

Amendment No. 44, in page 48, line 6 after 'allowance', insert
'or to whom section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 applies'.

Mrs. Chalker: Amendment No. 18, and its Keeling schedule equivalent—amendment No. 43—seek to broaden

people's eligibility for exceptional needs payments from those who are already receiving supplementary benefits, as presently drafted, to those who are entitled to them.
These amendments are the result of representations made to us by organisations representing local authorities, directors of social services and the disabled, as well as the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in Committee.
As presently drafted, the Bill will enable exceptional needs payments to be awarded only to people who are receiving a weekly benefit, either a supplementary pension or a supplementary allowance. That means that anyone entitled to a weekly supplementary pension or allowance who did not want to take it up—for example, because the amount payable was very small—but who wanted help by way of an exceptional needs payment would be ineligible for it. That position is not satisfactory, and these amendments meet the case made. They provide that exceptional needs payments may be payable to all those who are entitled to supplementary benefit, not only those who are receiving it.
I should explain that there is nothing sinister in the proviso that the person must satisfy prescribed conditions. All that is intended here is that he could not be entitled to benefit unless he satisfied the conditions of the claims and payments regulations by providing information, and so on. That has been a regular feature of regulations on this matter for many years.
I hope that the House will welcome these amendments. I shall ask the House to resist amendments Nos. 19 and 44, because amendment No. 18 goes some way towards helping those of the disabled who are not actually receiving supplementary benefit but who are entitled to receive it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We welcome Government amendment No. 18 because it goes some way towards meeting some of the anxieties that Labour Members expressed in Committee, and the anxieties expressed by many of the groups who made representations. I hoped that the Government would have gone further and included the provision


advocated in amendment No. 19. I was disappointed that they did not.
A letter from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation was passed to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). It was on the suggestion of that association that we tabled amendment No. 19. It is concerned with the disabled person's income, which is just above the supplementary benefit level.
As I understand the matter, the Government are saying, that those who are entitled to the exceptional needs payment but do not receive it—even if it is only a few pence—will be covered by this regulation, but that the disabled person whose income is just above the supplementary benefit will not be considered for that payment. However, under existing regulations these people sometimes qualify for such payments.
I find it disturbing that the Government have decided to take away the possibility of exceptional needs payments from a substantial number of the disabled. It is a little unfortunate that some of the disabled lobby did not make their representations to Back Benchers on both sides of the Committee at an earlier date. I have received complaints that we debated some of the points relating to the disabled on the wrong clauses or sub-sections. The disabled lobbyists were lucky that we managed to make any contribution on their behalf because their representations were received too late. Had we received them earlier, we could have discussed them when debating more suitable clauses.
The Minister should be prepared to accept amendment No. 19 to ensure that those disabled whose incomes are just above supplementary benefit level, but who may need an exceptional needs payment, will qualify for such a payment. That would cost only a small amount. It is the sort of area where a concession could be made. If the Government do not wish to make such a concession now, perhaps it could be considered further in another place.

Mr. Field: I welcome the small change that the Government have made. As I understand amendment No. 18, those persons, especially pensioners, who trans-

ferred to rent and rate rebates because they would be marginally better off, might be covered by the change that is listed in amendment No. 18.
Will the Minister say more about the prescribed conditions? I thought that the Government's concession would go a little beyond the outline which the Minister gave when introducing the amendment. I hoped that prescribed conditions would cover the working poor—those whose wage packets were less than the supplementary benefit level but who, because they were in full-time employment, were not eligible. There is more concern on both sides of the House about disfranchising that group—those who earn their poverty—than about any other change that the Government are proposing on the benefits levels. Will the prescribed conditions cover the working poor, and those who have transferred to rent and rate rebates?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, quite rightly, that there are some pensioners who have chosen to take a rent and rate rebate through their local authority but who, from November this year—when the supplementary benefit system will be changed by this legislation, subject to the consent of both Houses—may be better off on supplementary allowances. That would give them their entitlement to exceptional needs payments, if that should be necessary.
The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are considering this whole issue in the second stage of the Supplementary Benefits Commission's review of housing benefits. Therefore, for the time being this will be so, but I cannot say that it will be an immutable rule which will be unchanged in the future. However despondent the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) may be about progress on the vexed question of housing benefits, I can assure him of our determination and resolve to sort out this increasingly knotty problem.
6 pm
The hon. Member for Birkenhead also asked about prescribed conditions. As I understand it, on claims and regulations we cannot do what he asks. We well understand the plight of those persons in full-time work who are just below the supplementary benefit level and do not have


children. If they had children they would probably be entitled to family income supplement. I am aware that some people do not claim FIS, but we are trying to improve the take-up of that benefit. The prescribed conditions referred to in this amendment may not solve that part of the problem. That would have to be tackled on a different part of the Bill if we were so minded to change the situation.

Mr. Freeson: I have been informed that there are a number of people who are being rehoused or considered for re-housing from some of the hostels and reception centres into ordinary housing who have had difficulty in getting the exceptional needs payments for furnishing their accomodation. Obviously they would have such difficulty because of their history. If this is true will the Minister see that that is rectified, and that these people are included in the prescribed conditions referred to in the amendment.

Mrs. Chalker: I can assure the right hon. Member that this matter is being looked into and where there is a problem it will be rectified.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move amendment No. 22 in, page 33, line 12 after 'subsection', insert
'except a sum as to which it has been determined in accordance with regulations that it is not to be recovered in pursuance of this subsection,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 23 in, page 33, line 13 after 'State', insert in prescribed 'circumstances'. and Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47.

Mrs. Chalker: The Government amendment is a result of much of the time that we spent during two sittings of the Committee stage discussing various Opposition amendments relating to the recovery of urgent needs payments.
Two points were made in particular. First the Opposition felt that it should be made abundantly clear in regulations that there would be no requirement to repay an urgent needs payment where a person was not, on financial grounds, in a position to repay. Members also drew attention to the omission of the current provision whereby it is the Supplementary Benefits Commission which decides, with a right

of appeal, whether to recover benefit, having regard to whether recovery is "equitable". We also had a lengthy and somewhat confusing discussion—not always illuminated by constant references to the Oxford English Dictionary—about the precise meaning of the provisions in section 4. I undertook to do my level best to sort out the various problems, difficulties and misunderstandings that had arisen, and to come forward with proposals at Report stage. This amendment meets that undertaking.
The amendment enables the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the situations in which urgent needs payments will not be recoverable. Under those regulations, taken with section 2(1) of the Act as it will be amended, it will be for a supplementary benefit officer to decide whether the prescribed circumstances apply. Under section 15 of the Act there will, therefore, be a right of appeal.
The prescribed circumstances will broadly follow the existing rules laid down by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in the exercise of its power to recover payments where it is equitable. Thus, the regulations will cover the waiving of recovery where only small amounts of benefit are at stake, and where a person has only a low income, judged by supplementary benefit standards. The commission may also waive recovery where it is simply not a practicable proposition. For example, where urgent needs payments have been made to relieve distress arising from natural disasters, there will often have been no opportunity to make more than minimal investigations into the financial circumstances of the recipient. In such situations it may be quite unrealistic to contemplate recovery, given the lack of information.
Putting these rules into regulations will achieve their full publication for the first time. I can also undertake that an explanation of the regulations in this area will appear in the new handbook to be published on the authority of the Secretary of State. I hope that Government amendment No. 22, and No. 46 which runs with it, will meet all the requests made on this point by hon. Members in Committee.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Could the Minister indicate why her amendment is


better than Opposition amendment No. 23? Ours contains fewer words and it is clearer.

Mrs. Chalker: The House knows that I am not a lawyer. Given time, I am sure that I could get legal advice from someone who could tell me why the Government amendment is superior in its wording. Perhaps it has the right commas in the right places. At the moment I am afraid that I cannot give an exact explanation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that Government amendment No. 23 does everything that we meant to do? Is she sure that she is not providing just half a loaf instead of the whole loaf for which we asked?

Mrs. Chalker: I do not want to get involved in a discussion on the loaves and fishes. We are seeking to do all that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) asked for in Committee. Even if our amendments in minutiae are not exactly the same, the intention is the same.

Mr. Field: The Minister did not clear up some of the issues that we raised in Committee. For example, what is the definition of "low income"? Is it around the supplementary benefit level or is it below that level?
The other question which concerned us in Committee was that of the urgent needs payment to single strikers who returned to work. We pressed the Minister on whether they would be exempted from the recovery provisions.

Mrs. Chalker: I find it difficult to say any more on this issue than I said clearly in Committee on the night of 19 February between 11 pm and 11.30 pm. I have checked the reference and that is why I can give the time and date of my remarks so accurately.
I said then that the current practice was that exceptional hardship would be recreated by recovery in cases of extreme distress. It would be unwise to seek recovery in those circumstances. I cannot foretell what any future legislation may do, but on this aspect of this Bill I stand by what I said on 19 February.
The definition of low income would be supplementary benefit level. We have had many debates about this and the question of where the line should be drawn has been raised often. I cannot see any interpretation other than the level of entitlement to benefit.

Amendment agreed to.

Miss Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 34, line 24, after 'Act', insert
'but not solely by virtue of section 17 (1) (c) of this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment No. 48, in page 50, line 8 after 'Act' insert
'but not solely by virtue of section 17 (1) (c) of this Act'.

Miss Richardson: Amendment No. 24 would prevent the possibility of a person who sponsored an immigrant being sent to a re-establishment centre if he failed to support the immigrant. The matter was debated in Committee when we discussed a similar amendment. The Under-Secretary of State said in reply to the debate that the amendment was based on a misconception, and that such directions could not apply to sponsors of immigrants. I am sure that she believed that to be true. However, Labour Members have checked on it, and either it is not true—I am not calling the hon. Lady an untruthful person—or the Bill is written wrongly. The Under-Secretary is wrong. Section 10 of the Supplementary Benefits Act, as amended by the Bill, provides that an unemployed supplementary benefit claimant can be directed to attend a re-establishment centre if it appears to a benefit officer that the person refuses or neglects to maintain himself or any other person who, for the purposes of the Act, he is liable to maintain.
At present, the only people whom a claimant is liable to maintain are his wife and children. In future, if the Bill is is enacted, he will also be liable to maintain an immigrant whom he sponsors. If he fails to do that, section 10 will apply in the same way as it would have applied if he had failed to maintain his wife and children. That must be unintentonal. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State genuinely thought that she was right in saying that our amendment was based


on a misconception. But that is our understanding of the matter, and it is the understanding of experts whom we have consulted.
I have received a letter—perhaps the hon. Lady has received a similar letter—from three of the immigrant organisations, protesting bitterly. I should like to read the letter into the record. It is signed by the national president of the Indian Workers Association, Great Britain, the national president of the Bangladesh Workers Association, United Kingdom, and the general secretary of the Kashmiri Workers Association, United Kingdom. It says:
We the undersigned, representing the organisations named, are deeply concerned at the news of the introduction of the Social Security Bill to be debated on 19 March 1980.
The people of New Commonwealth countries who have settled in Britain have already been the subject of discriminatory policies of successive governments in the form of restrictive and racist laws. The proposed Social Security Bill is yet another addition to the discriminatory legislative practices of the present Government. It is, in fact, yet another Immigration Bill in disguise.
In our view the Bill is a blatant attack on human rights, condemning the people from the New Commonwealth countries settled here in the United Kingdom in general and in particular condemning those who are contemplating to visit their relatives in this country to the roost degrading treatment.
Those people feel the same way about this part of the Bill as Labour Members. They continue:
It makes the sponsor liable for prosecution if his sponsored relatives resort to financial assistance from the Social Security. The consequence of which can result in the imposition of heavy fines, imprisonment and may ultimately lead to deportation of both the sponsor and his relatives.
They continue by saying that such treatment is contrary to the canons of the Helsinki Agreement, and so on.
6.15 pm
If the Under-Secretary of State was convinced that the Bill would not have that effect, I should have thought that she would have happily accepted our amendment, which seeks to put the matter beyond reasonable doubt. She has raised many doubts among Labour Members, and in the minds of immigrant organisations. I am sure that she does not wish to make them feel—whatever they may feel already, particularly in view of the introduction of immigration rules—that

the Bill contains any provision that is racist and discriminatory against minority communities.
I shall be interested to hear the comments of the hon. Lady on whether she feels that our amendment will help to put the matter straight beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr. Field: We debated this matter in Committee, and we were dissatisfied with the Minister's reply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) said, after consultation with outside experts we remain equally concerned.
The amendment is based on a case that the Child Poverty Action Group fought at the tribunal stage. An immigrant family had brought relatives into Britain, and it gave an undertaking that it would support the relatives. I do not think that any hon. Member will disagree that, if an undertaking was given, it should have been kept, if the immigrant family had the resources to do so. However, as we explained to the Minister in Committee, entrepreneurs are sometimes galvanised into action, and sometimes they are galvanised into inaction. As a result of falling upon hard times the whole family became dependent on supplementary benefits. Because of the undertaking given by the family, the commission refused to support the sponsored immigrant, and pursued the immigrant's family through the courts.
As we understand the Bill, the measures that can be taken against people who do not maintain themselves and those whom they are liable to maintain are as set out in the previous Act. One measure that can be used against such groups of claimants is to send them to a re-establishment centre. We cannot fathom how immigrant claimants who, with the best will in the world, have given an undertaking, to support a sponsored relative and then cannot meet that sponsorship will not be treated in that way.
Perhaps part of our anxiety will be set at rest if the Minister puts on record that those measures will not apply if the immigrants are able to show to the Supplementary Benefits Commission—or whatever the new body will be called—that they do not have the resources to meet the commitments into which they entered in good faith and that, not only will the


sponsored immigrants have a right to benefit but that they will not be pursued through the normal channels.
We tabled this amendment because the position was still not clear after we had debated the matter in Committee. We then consulted outside experts and lawyers. They believe that, as the Bill is drafted, the immigrant who has been sponsored will have to be pursued through the tribunals and sent to a re-establishment centre. We do not believe that that is the Government's intention. We should like the Government to put on record that that is not their intention, and, even better, we should like them to accept our amendment.

Mrs. Chalker: I shall first explain the position about how section 10 will apply, then I shall come to the amendment and finally I shall deal with the individual questions.
Section 10 of the Supplementary Benefits Act, as amended by the Bill, will provide for a benefit officer to issue a direction to attend a course of instruction or training, but before that could be done two conditions would need to be satisfied. First, the person so directed has to be in receipt of supplementary benefit and registered for employment. Second, that person must be refusing or neglecting to maintain himself or some other person whom he is liable under the Act to maintain.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the direction cannot apply to the sponsor of an immigrant relative where the sponsor is himself receiving benefit and is for that reason alone unable to honour his undertaking. In the normal way, of course, such a sponsor would not he receiving supplementary benefit and there could be no question of a section 10 direction being imposed on him. But even if he is getting benefit, as I have explained, before a direction could be considered the other condition would need to apply—that is, that the person sponsoring is deliberately evading his responsibility, either to maintain himself or his relative.
It is conceivable that a sponsor could satisfy both conditions, and it would then be open to the benefit officer to consider imposing a section 10 direction. But in

practice that is a remote possibility. The important point is that receipt of supplementary benefit would on its own give no grounds under the Act for imposing a direction. I said in Committee that an amendment with a similar purpose was unnecessary. I think that the same applies to this amendment.
I was able to give only a brief assurance in Committee and I understand the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) when she read out the petition, a copy of which I have seen only in the last 10 minutes. I understand, too, what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has been saying.
We have given further consideration to what was said in Committee, and although someone in the future may want to change the legislation, the Bill embodies these two firm conditions, both of which have to be satisfied before the section 10 direction can be given by a supplementary benefits officer. It follows, therefore, that a direction cannot be imposed solely because a sponsor is on benefit. That appears to me to be the area causing concern to the Labour Members who have spoken and to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who cannot be with us at the moment but who has written to me at some length about this matter. I was able to give him and the Commission for Racial Equality in Hammersmith the reassurances they sought.
There is, therefore, no basis for the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead and by the immigrant communities. If a sponsor's circumstances changed there would be no question of attempting recovery of benefit. That applies as in the case of other liable relatives. Recovery of benefit can be attempted only where the relative is in a position to provide support. In the same way that I have already described, the two conditions which would govern the potential issuing of a section 10 direction would both have to be satisfied and that occurrence is a remote possibility.
I hope that I have been able to allay the fears of Labour Members, and that they will seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 37, line 33, at end insert—
'(l) as to the circumstances to be taken into account by a benefit officer in deciding whether a man and a woman who are not married to each other are an unmarried couple'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 49, in page 54, line 12, at end insert—
'(l) as to the circumstances to be taken into account by a benefit officer in deciding whether a man and a woman who are not married to each other are an unmarried couple'.

Mr. Bennett: The amendment deals with the cohabitation rule, as it is often described. Its aim would be to ensure that the criteria for deciding whether a couple are living together as husband and wife are published in full and that they are subject to scrutiny both by Parliament and the advisory committee.
It is important that people should be able to see exactly what the rules are. That sentiment is supposed to be one of the major arguments in favour of the changes by which the rules will be seen by people and, we hope, understood.
The Minister for Social Security told us at the thirteenth sitting of the Standing Committee that the criteria set up in the Supplementary Benefits Commission's administration paper "Living Together as Husband and Wife" would continue to be used as guidance for officers. It is not clear whether, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply, they would be used as an administrative guidance, to be set out in an A code, or as policy guidance to be issued to chief supplementary benefit officers, or whether it was to be published for everyone to examine. The amendment is aimed at discovering how the guidance will be set out.
If they are simply to be policy guidance, there is no reason to assume that the new officers would accept the guidance which now exists. However, the essential factor is that it should be set out in a published form, and not just as a potted version in a supplementary benefits handbook.
The whole idea in the White Paper was that the rules would be clearly set out. I hope that the Minister will tell us that in this particularly difficult area all the rules, not just a potted version of them, will be published, and that there will not be

administrative guidance interpreting the rules to the advantage of those enforcing them and to the disadvantage of the claimants.
I hope that it will be possible for people to get hold of the supplementary benefits handbook without difficulty, but particularly for groups who want to advise claimants to get hold of the legislation relating to supplementary benefits. I understand that it now costs £20 to get full copies of the legislation on this subject. That information was contained in an answer I received from the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, earlier this week. That is a large sum to have to pay out to obtain basic information about regulations and the law.
I therefore hope that the Minister will assure us that we shall be able to get all the regulations, and that there will not be a secret A code or some other guidance that will be kept from the general public and claimants in particular.

Mrs. Chalker: Perhaps I should not be frivolous about the hon. Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. Stallard) since he has now gone, but he seemed to be suggesting to his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that perhaps there was an exceptional need for him to have the legislation to which he was referring.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North that the cost of supplementary benefits legislation is quite high. Perhaps the way in which we ate trying to simplify the law will benefit those who want to understand it. If we simplify it there will be less of it and that will mean that it will be less expensive.
The hon. Member wants all the rules and regulations to be set out as clearly as possible. I had hoped that Labour Members had accepted during our debate in Standing Committee on 21 February on cohabitation that the guidelines to which the commission's officers are required to have regard are working well in practice. After the change made in 1978, many people concerned with this subject felt that the new guide was probably working better than the old. The guidelines are clearly set out in the Supplementary Benefits Commission's administration paper No. 5 entitled "Living Together as Husband and Wife". My right hon.


Friend the Minister assured the Committee that we would continue to rely for guidance to officers on that Supplementary Benefits Commission's administration paper. I can reconfirm that.
One of the difficulties is that if every guideline is published in regulations we shall get into major tangles with the law. I really do not see the need to publish these guidelines, other than to say that the existing practice will be adhered to. They are simply guidelines as to the interpretation of the law and I do not think that it is desirable to require that every letter of them should be followed in every case. Guidelines cannot cover every set of circumstances. Benefit officers will be unable to judge simply by adding up so many pluses and so many minuses, although doing that may help. They have to use a lot of common sense in deciding whether the guidelines are accessible.
In the criteria that are already published by the Supplementary Benefits Commission administration paper there is a great deal of clarity. I am sorry if the hon. Member for Stockport, North does not accept that view. Any further elaboration of the guidelines would be an interpretation which might be made as, say, a development of case law established by the Social Security Commissioners. That is what should be reflected in the handbook, and that will be done.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister is suggesting that there should be discretion. As I understand it the whole idea of the Bill was to remove the discretion. If the Minister wants to retain discretion to interpret the cohabitation rule, why does she not want to retain it in other areas if it is difficult to draw guidelines? If it is possible to draw guidelines, surely people are entitled to see them.
The Minister has said that the present information is clear. If that is so there cannot be a need for any more information. If it is not clear and the Government have to start giving extra guidance, surely everyone should be entitled to study that guidance to see whether it is fair rather than it be kept secret.

Mrs. Chalker: I thought that the whole point of what I was saying was that the Supplementary Benefits Commission guidelines, which are contained in the pamphlet, "Living Together as Husband and Wife", are quite clear and well understood. I do not believe that there is any need to add to those guidelines, nor to have them specifically put into regulations.
I understand what the hon. Member for Stockport, North is saying about discretion. I am not advocating, nor is the Bill, that benefits officers should have special discretion. But I think that the hon. Gentleman will accent that in a case as difficult as a cohabitation case the officers are trained in such a way that they can look at the case with a great sensitivity to see whether the relationship is permanent.
I recall that in the debates when the rules were changed it was said that where there are grounds for doubt, the elements of continuity and stability of a relationship should always be an important factor to be considered by the officer when making a judgment.
So I am not saying that we should go down the path of discretion. I am saying that the judgment of an officer, who is trained so to judge, in deciding whether a relationship is a continuing and stable one, is something that we could not write into regulations. Interviews are carried out only by those officers who have had specialised training.
I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman that the arrangements which are sensible and working well at present are a civilised approach to a difficult problem. I hope that they will continue to work well. I see no reason for the amendment at present. That is why I advise the House not to accept it. If there is some dramatic change in the future the House must, at that time, look at the situation as it then is and if, in its wisdom, it decides to make a change I am sure that the change will be made.
At present the guidelines that have been in operation for a couple of years are working a good deal better than what proceeded them and they are best left alone. The elements I have described should be decided by benefit officers. Where there are grounds for doubt, the important decision can be made on the


element of continuity, with the stability of the relationship probably forming the final deciding point.

Amendment negatived.

Miss Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 37, line 33, at end insert:
'(l) for requiring a benefit officer to decide any question with respect to a claim for supplementary benefit within such time as may be specified in the regulations or such longer time as may be necessary in the circumstances.'.
Basically this amendment gives power to make regulations regarding the time within which a benefit officer must make his decision on a supplementary benefit claim. It recognises that in some cases it will be necessary to take longer. We had a debate about this, though on a slightly different amendment, in Committee. That amendment would have required a benefit officer to dispose of a case within 14 days
so far as is practicable.
On that occasion the Minister who replied said:
I take the valid point of the right hon. Gentleman that the existence of a benchmark gives Members of Parliament, claimants' unions and claimants something they can quote when they are speaking, or writing, to the Department and ask, 'Why are you taking more than 14 days?'. There is something to be studied there in the context of regulations rather than the statute"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 February 1980; c. 639.]
All that we are doing here is trying to ensure, by putting it into legislative words, that the Secretary of State has power to make regulations on this subject.
This is a small amendment. All it seeks to do is to clarify the matter, which we do not think is clear enough at present and which may give rise to misinterpretation outside when it comes into operation. It is a minor point but it is a very important one. We hope that the Minister will consider that it is worthy of acceptance simply to make the Bill as clear as possible.
I often think during our debates, on whatever subject, that we should try to make our legislation as clear as possible, not only to ourselves, the benefit officers and the claimants, but to others outside the House who may also have to interpret it. Where it is possible for Government to accept amendments—I am speaking to

the amendment, Mr. Speaker; I thought you were looking at me interrogatively.

Mr. Speaker: I am quite innocent. I did not say a word and I did not even look unkindly at the hon. Lady.

Miss Richardson: I thought that there was a questioning look on your face, Mr. Speaker. I thought that you were about to catch me out.
We are trying to make the matter clear. I believe that any Government should take the opportunity to do that whenever possible. If that is not done, a great deal of gobbledegook goes into our law, and it is liable to misinterpretation and misapplication by people outside the House.

Mrs. Chalker: The amendment, which is intended to give power to make regulations providing for the expeditious clearance of claims for supplementary benefit, is unnecessary. First, we can draw the claims and payments regulations sufficiently widely to include such a power, and I beleive that it is in the regulations that the power should lie. Secondly, after the debate on this issue in Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security undertook to consider whether we could incorporate in regulations a provision that would go some way to meeting the Opposition's point. We intend to do so in the regulations, which will follow in a month or so.
I should like to say a few words about our intentions. Regulations will be made to put the supplementary benefit position broadly on a par with the similar provisions for national insurance, in sections 98(1) and 99(1) of the Social Security Act 1975. That means that benefit officers will be required to determine new and repeat claims as far as is practicable within 14 days of the time when they are in possession of all the information necessary to make a determination. I emphasise that, as my right hon. Friend said in Committee, the vast majority of new and repeat claims for supplementary benefit are cleared well within the 14-day period. But I accept that regulations along the lines that I propose will serve as a useful reminder of the need for speed in resolving claims.
Although the amendment does not specifically cover family income supplement. I think it right to tell hon. Members


that we intend to incorporate a similar provision in regulations for that benefit so that the emphasis is on getting claims dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
I hope that with that assurance I have satisfied Labour Members.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What the hon. Lady has said sounded very good, except that she spoke of all the relevant information being in the hands of the benefit officer. Some of my constituents feel that they have got all the relevant information to the Department but that the Department has failed to get it all together in one place. I hope that the hon. Lady can confirm that as long as the information has gone into the office it will be deemed to be all there, and that it will not be the claimant's responsibility to make sure that it reaches the right place within the office, which is often the difficulty.

Mrs. Chalker: Once a claimant has delivered all the necessary information to the office, we cannot expect it to be his or her responsibility to see that it is in the right pigeonhole and linked with the other documents. But it is a help to the administration of any benefit system if all the papers are supplied at the same time where possible.
We are seeking to make sure that once the local office has received all the documents in the making of a claim the regulations will provide that a claim shall be decided as expeditiously as possible—within 14 days. I hope that Labour hon. Members will accept that the claims and payments regulations to be produced in line with the Bill, when it receives the Royal Assent, will entirely cover the points that have been made and the assurances that my right hon. Friend and I have given.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move amendment No. 28 in page 37, line 42, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to take Government amendment No. 52.

Mrs. Chalker: The amendments are technical. I am sure that I shall be chided by the House when I say that they are designed to improve the grammar of sec-

tion 15(1) of the Act, as amended. As I heard the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) use the terrible word "gobbledegook" a few minutes ago, I am glad that the amendment is on the Notice Paper.
The amendments make it clear that the claim or receipt of supplementary benefit in respect of which a person has a right of appeal under the section is his claim or benefit and not that of any other person. I hope that the House will agree that the possible ambiguity created by the present wording should be removed by these two sensible, technical amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 41, line 41, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) Regulations of the following kinds, namely—

(a) regulations of which the effect is to increase an amount which is specified in regulations made in pursuance of section 3 of this Act or which, by virtue of regulations made in pursuance of paragraph (b) of section 4(1) of this Act, is specified in a provision mentioned in that paragraph;
(b) regulations made in pursuance of section 32A(b) of this Act except regulations made for the purpose only of con-consolidating regulations which they revoke;
(c) regulations made in pursuance of paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act except regulations made for the purpose only of consolidating regulations which they revoke,

shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House and, in the case of regulations falling within paragraph (a) or (c) of this subsection, shall not be made without the consent of the Treasury.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to take Government amendment No. 54.

Mrs. Chalker: The amendment ensures that the uprating regulations on exceptional needs payments and urgent needs payments will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 54 makes the corresponding change to the Keeling schedule.
The amendments relate to the uprating of any amounts in regulations relating to exceptional needs payments and urgent


needs payments which are made under sections 3 and 4 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976.
In Committee the Opposition moved amendments providing for reference to the Social Security Advisory Committee of all supplementary benefit uprating regulations. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said then that we should look at the matter again in time for report. The Committee Hansard reference is col. 1536. We remain of the view that it would not be appropriate to refer supplementary benefit uprating regulations to the committee. The main reason is that these matters are for the Budget, and the proper forum for their consideration is the House rather than a body such as the committeeֵ No other uprating regulations will be referred to the committee.
Consideration of the uprating of scale rates by the House is assured, because those regulations are already subject to affirmative resolution. The same does not apply to regulations uprating exceptional needs payments and urgent needs pay-merits. As the Bill stands, they will be subject neither to affirmative resolution nor to reference to the committee. For the reasons that I have given, I do not think that reference to the committee would be appropriate.
However, we think that the regulations should be subject to parliamentary approval. Therefore, the amendments provide that they should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure instead of the negative resolution procedure provided for by the Bill at present. That will ensure a consistent pattern on all the uprating regulations.
I trust that the House will welcome the amendments as meeting hon. Members' points and being sensible and logical.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Field: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 43, line 29, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this amendment we are to take the following amendments:
No. 31, in page 43, line 30, after second 'requirements', insert 'clothing requirements'.
No. 55, in page 66, line 3, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
No. 56, in page 66, line 3, after first 'requirements', insert 'clothing requirements'.

Mr. Field: I wish first to draw attention to the living standards of those at present dependent on supplementary benefit. Fortunately, most hon. Members have not had that experience. Those who have been on supplementary benefit for any length of time know what a desperately low standard of living the weekly benefit gives claimants and their families. It is so low, and the pressure on weekly budgets is so great, that the Supplementary Benefits Commission is often asked to make exceptional needs payments for what many of us would regard as everyday needs, particularly clothing.
Under the Bill, most exceptional needs for clothing will be forbidden by the new body. Only in the most exceptional circumstances will lump sums be paid to claimants in need of clothing. The Bill makes a major change. It states that scale rates will cover normal clothing needs. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 point out that the clothing needs of claimants and their families are not covered by the prescribed rates or by the weekly amounts that claimants receive from the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
If one looks at the review of the supplementary benefit system, one sees how mean the Government are. Two proposals were put forward in the review. It was proposed to increase the weekly scale rates in order to cover claimants' clothing needs, or to make regular lump sum payments. Neither of those reforms will be achieved. Claimants' clothing needs will be legislated out of existence in order to cut down the amount of discretionary payments made by the Commission. Those needs will still exist, but one will no longer be able to register them within the system.
Even at this late stage, the Government should make a concession which is of considerable importance to claimants, particularly those with children. All documents published by the Supplementary Benefits Commission and by other outside bodies show that families with children, who are dependent on benefits, have the lowest standards of living. Those families face a problem when budgeting for clothes. Their needs should be met


by the system. The Government should either pay regular lump sum payments, or increase the scale rates by an additional amount, over and above the increase in November, to cover clothing needs. Perhaps the Government should accept our amendments. Our amendments would allow exceptional needs payments to be made to those claimants who cannot budget adequately for clothing.
The Government may say that they do not have the resources to fund such an amendment. The Minister will probably say that, as in Committee, we are good at judging his replies to our amendments. However, if he looks carefully at the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, particularly that part dealing with the financial savings, he will find nothing chalked up in the key introductory remarks. There is no list showing the saving to the Government of disbanding present clothing payments under the exceptional needs regulations. As the Government have not budgeted for that saving, and as they have not spent that money in any other way they could concede amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
Perhaps the Government are unhappy because they wish to simplify the supplementary benefit scheme. We are prepared to concede that. However, why not use the money saved by disallowing those exceptional needs payments, to increase the weekly scale rates or to introduce that which social assistance advocated in the first place, namely, regular lump sum payments to cover the clothing needs of claimants?
These amendments deal with the immensely important change that the Government propose to make. The Government's proposals will particularly affect those claimants who have children. Exceptional needs payments act as a safety valve on a benefit system that usually pays inadequate benefits. As the Government have not spent the savings which will arise from disallowing those payments, it is not too late to make an important concession. That concession particularly affects claimants with children.

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that Opposition Members had often anticipated in

Committee the reply that I would give. He is wrong this time. I shall not reply along the lines that he has anticipated. However, I shall resist the amendment. I shall not oppose the amendment on the ground that resources are not available to finance it. If finance were available for a more generous supplementary benefit scheme than we are likely to have for some years, I would still judge that this is the wrong way to tackle the problem of clothing needs. The amendment would put a special category "clothing requirements" into the schedule. The schedule states:
For the purposes of this Schedule requirements shall be of three categories, namely, normal requirements, additional requirements, and housing requirements;
The phrase "normal requirements" includes expenditure on clothing. There is a scale rate which should cover the requirements of the person concerned. Within that amount they have whatever freedom of choice is available. They are in a straitened situation compared with most citizens. There is not much room for manoeuvre. However, within limits, they can make decisions about how much to spend on clothing, food and so on.
In addition, there will be some provision for clothing payments under the general heading of "exceptional needs". As the hon. Gentleman knows, we intend to reduce the discretionary element in the scheme. The discretionary element which remains will be defined as closely as possible. We explained to members of the Committee what the general position for housing would be. We gave an explanation in the annexe that we issued to the notes and clauses. We described the regulations that were proposed.
Perhaps I should remind the House of what was said about the purchase of clothing and the circumstances in which additional payments on top of the normal scale rates would be made. There are three categories. The first is where the claimant has not been receiving benefit for which he has been eligible. In those circumstances a need might be identified which would be the subject of an exceptional needs payment. The second is where the need has arisen other than by wear and tear. For example, a need might arise as a result of pregnancy. An accident leading to the loss of a limb


might be the subject of special clothing needs. As a result of fire, flood or some other catastrophe a person might suddenly find himself in need, and that need might include exceptional clothing requirements above those normally needed. The third main category would be where illness or admission to hospital necessitates the purchase of certain clothes that the claimant does not have.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I have listened very carefully to the Minister's explanation. Most hon. Members will be aware that many homes in Lancashire have green mould which has arisen as a result of dampness. That mould affects clothing and furniture. That is an added expenditure and it results from the deterioration of the claimant's wearing apparel. When that person claims, he or she is told that the benefit covers the cost of clothing. Cheap, shoddy clothing is really the most costly on the market. It lacks quality and will not last. The poor person who does not have sufficient money to buy quality goods will buy in the shoddy market. Will the Minister explain that?

7 pm

Mr. Prentice: People on low incomes may tend to buy cheaper clothing. That is in the nature of things, whether we are speaking of people on supplementary benefits or those whose earnings are much lower than average.
I have explained that the normal scale rates of supplementary benefit were intended to cover the normal clothing needs of recipients. The question of whether dampness in a dwelling causes an emergency need for extra clothing will come within the category that I defined—whether the need for clothing arose for reasons other than normal wear and tear. I do not wish to anticipate case law on a hypothetical borderline case, but if a person wished to make a claim he would have to wait and see the result.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Where the need is for special clothing for warmth and the benefit is given for that purpose, the requirement is not for a new article but a substantial quality warm pair of boots, for example. The allowance provided for that is totally inadequate and the supplementary benefit does not meet the need of the beneficiary.

Mr. Prentice: That requirement would probably relate to the third definition that

I gave, where ill-health or admission to hospital necessitated the purchase of certain clothes. I believe that that is what the hon. Gentleman meant. That allowance again could be claimed, but I cannot anticipate every borderline case or the interpretation of the adjudicating authorities. The regulations will be framed in the way that I have described and include reference to special clothing needs arising from ill health. The claim in the case that the hon. Gentleman describes, I believe, would come within that category.
The changes are in no way at the expense of the claimant. We have had a broad and vague form of discretion, the application of which has varied between areas, which is not a good idea. We propose that exceptional needs payments for clothing should be defined in terms of the categories that I have given, which will not be to the disadvantage of claimants.

Mr. Field: It is amazing that the Minister says that claimants will not suffer. The amendments are put forward precisely because they will. It is doubly puzzling when the Minister says that an additional advantage is that in the past claimants have been treated differently in different areas. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be advocating that no one gets much help, and there will thus be an equality in misery.
Large numbers of claimants have had additional help with clothing needs, which they will not now get unless they fit in to the limited categories detailed. That is a loss to them. We do not know how families will budget for their clothing needs, particularly if they remain on the right side of the law.
Where will the money saved through not paying out a vast number of exceptional needs benefits now go? The Minister has given a totally unsatisfactory reply.

Mr. Prentice: I do not accept that there will be a general saving of money. The categories are broad and not narrow.

Mr. Field: They are tiny categories.

Mr. Prentice: They are not tiny. I shall not repeat them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman read the annex to our notes on clauses, which contained the definitions.
It was always the concept that the scale rate included provision for clothing, among other necessities of life. We are merely defining the payment of exceptional needs benefits more concisely, in the form of regulations in respect of clothing and other matters. Those concerned and their advisers will know their entitlement, and the system will be more open and helpful to claimants. There is no question of taking away from claimants in general what they have had until now, and the amendment is superfluous. It will not help claimants and it adds nothing to the concept of the scheme.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We have learnt to live with the fact that Ministers make sweet and reasonable speeches suggesting concern and compassion for claimants but in reality deliver them a kick in the teeth. The Minister has failed to understand the problem and shows no concern for claimants.
The major argument in the review was to reduce the number of exceptional needs payments. The areas were listed, and it was said that the greatest problem was with regard to clothing. Ways were suggested of reducing the number of payments, either by substantially increasing the basic rate or by special lump sum payments for clothing.
We have no evidence that the Government will put up the rates in the autumn to take account of the disappearance of many of the exceptional needs payments. We fear that those payments will not even be increased to take account of inflation. There is no evidence that people will not need the exceptional needs payments because the basic rates will be increased. The Government have not accepted the lump sum proposal.
The money available to the claimant each week will not be increased dramatically, but the claimant will be expected to make weekly savings out of that to accumulate money to buy clothes. It is impossible for people on benefits to save. It is often impossible to get through the week with sufficient food each day. It is ridiculous to expect those people to accumulate substantial sums to buy large items of clothing, whether from a jumble sale or elsewhere.
The simple solution is either to increase the rate substantially or, if that is not

possible, to give lump sum payments to those regularly on benefits to recognise their clothing needs.
The Minister's answer is extremely disappointing. I hope that he will reconsider. We should divide the House because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, but under the guillotine we cannot waste time.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 43, line 30, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 74, in page 43, line 30, after third requirements' insert
'and requirements necessarily related to extra costs of daily living by reason of the chronic sickness or disability of a member of the household, having due regard to the position of that member in the household and the nature of his impairment'.
No. 33, in page 43, line 34, at end insert
'provided always that when prescribing such items and weekly amounts the Secretary of State shall ensure that proper provision is made for the recurring costs incurred by a chronically sick or disabled person by reason of his impairment.'.
No. 75, in page 66, line 4 leave out first 'and'.
No. 76, in page 66, line 4, after second 'requirements' insert
'and requirements necessarily related to extra costs of daily living by reason of the chronic sickness or disability of a member of the household, having due regard to the position of that member in the household and the nature of his impairment'.
No. 78, in page 66, line 7, at end insert
'provided always that when prescribing such items and weekly amounts the Secretary of State shall ensure that proper provision is made for the recurring costs incurred by a chronically sick or disabled person by reason of his impairment.'.

Mr. Morris: The amendments seek to help some of the poorest of disabled people and I warmly commend them to the House.
To mark the importance of the amendments, let me quote Mr. Peter Large who, as the House knows, is a distinguished spokesman of the Disablement Income Group—DIG. In a recent letter to me, Mr. Large urged the case for a disablement costs allowance which would give


new help and new hope to disabled people generally. He said:
As you appreciate, the need for the disablement costs allowance has become urgent now that the nil-cost simplification of the supplementary benefits scheme is under way. The simplifications discount special needs and disabled people, with their special financial needs, are being simplified out of the system. This will be disastrous if there is no alternative benefit to meet the financial problems they incur as a result of disability.
The amendments will help to write some of the poorest disabled people back into the system and I appeal to Conservative Members, as to my right hon. and hon. Friends, to support them in the Lobbies.
The previous Labour Government introduced three new cash benefits for disabled persons and their families—the noncontributory invalidity pension, the invalid care allowance and the mobility allowance.
At the same time, we legislated to link rises in cash benefits for disabled persons to increases in average industrial earnings. I refer not only to the attendance allowance and the contributory and noncontributory invalidity benefits, but also to industrial injury benefits and war disablement pensions. As with retirement pensions those benefits rose, after our Social Security Act 1975, in line with average earnings or the cost of living, whichever was better for sick and disabled people.
About 1½ million disabled people benefited from that provision and I pay tribute tonight to the memory of my late friend and ministerial colleague in the previous Labour Government, Brian O'Malley, who worked so hard to forge the link that the present Government have decided to break by the provisions of this Bill.
The Labour Government also improved services for disabled persons over a wide range and worked ceaselessly not only to improve public attitudes towards disabled people, but also their opportunities in society. All that was the good news. The bad news was that the fall of the Labour Government stopped the publication of a Green Paper on an important further new benefit that we intended to provide for disabled people.
As the Minister in that Government responsible for the disabled, I was working with my officials on a proposal for a fourth and comprehensive new benefit for disabled people. My successor was

clearly made aware of that work on his appointment, because he referred to it last July when addressing the all-party disablement group in the House. In doing so, he made clear to the group that work on the proposal had ceased. The right hon. Gentleman was asked at that meeting by his hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) about—I quote from the minutes of the meeting:
the implementation of a general disablement costs allowance which was the main priority for the Group and disability organisations generally. Mr. Prentice said he regretted that, because of the cuts in public expenditure, this must be a long-term aim. During the term of the previous Government work had begun within the DHSS on a Green Paper but this had been halted, because, Mr. Prentice said, it would be wrong for him to raise expectations which could not be fulfilled.
That statement and its implications helped to prompt the amendments, and indeed new clauses 10 and 12 for which, unfortunately, no time was available yesterday.
7.15 pm
In a letter to the DIG on 22 August last year about our proposal for a new and comprehensive benefit for disabled people, the Minister for Social Security said:
The question of introducing such an allowance is one of priorities and available resources and … there is no money at present for any new benefits.
The right hon. Gentleman went on:
It would only raise false hopes if we entered into detailed discussions now on the format of an allowance which could not possibly materialise for some years.
The Minister's arguments against producing a Green Paper are not just disappointing. They are depressing. The disabled are not pathetic children, as his argument about raising false hopes implies. Severely disabled people have to be and are realists. They mostly suffer the harsh realities of life of the poor and least fortunate in Britain today.
The Minister said in 1974, when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science in the Labour Government:
if sacrifices are to be borne, the broadest backs must bear the heaviest sacrifices."— [Officied Report, 15 March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 622.]
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but does the right hon. Gentleman still accept the philosophy which he put to the House only a few short years ago? Clearly he has renounced that philosophy,


because in his present role he said last year:
The disabled cannot expect to be exempted from the sacrifices necessary.
Again in a Conservative party-political broadcast last year, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We need to be a more self-reliant society, I think, in which people are standing on their own feet.
That was not the happiest of phrases from the Minister who is responsible for dealing with the problems of disabled people.
The difference between us is clear. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not accept that disabled people, who are already handicapped by their disabilities, should suffer the further burden of a squeeze on the public expenditure that is available to them. Nor do most other people in this country. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has said:
Ministers continually repeat their concern for severely disabled people; but their actions are condemning them to isolation and increasing dependence.
That is a grave charge to make against any Minister or any Government.
For my part, I cannot accept that there is no money available to help disabled people. One of the Government's first acts was to give £1,500 million in tax relief to the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers in this country. A Government who gave such huge relief to the richest people cannot say that they could not have helped some of our poorest people.
In my view, current policies may well drive more and more disabled people out of society and into institutions. Most disabled people want more than anything to lessen their dependence on others, to get on with living their own lives as normally as they can, in their own homes among their own families, and wherever possible to have the opportunity of contributing to industry and society as fully as their abilities allow.
Investment in people, disabled people no less than able-bodied and more fortunate people, is much the best of all investments. These amendments are important. They are addressed to the problems of many of the most needy in our society. I hope very much that the House will approve them.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I have great pleasure in supporting the contentions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who had a distinguished record as a Minister with responsibilities for the disabled. The record bears examination. There can be no doubt that, at this time, disabled people in Britain are falling behind, both relatively and absolutely. They simply cannot keep pace with inflation either because they are unemployed or they have poor jobs that are badly paid. They also have to meet increasing costs as well as a cut in services.
This combination of blows for disabled people means that they now face a near-crisis. It is a crisis that should be met by strong, firm and clear Government action. I cannot see how any Minister with responsibilities for the disabled can oppose these amendments which are specifically designed to deal with the problems of the disabled.
I should like to mention the special costs that disabled people have to bear. Many people overlook them. The disabled face the cost of special food, extra clothing and laundry, extra heating, chemist's goods and house maintenance. It has been estimated, as the Minister may be aware, by Miss Mavis Hyman, writing for the report "Action Research for the Crippled Child", that the extra cost of disability amounts to no less than 24 per cent. of household income. This means that people with a very low income suffer a reduction of a quarter of income by virtue of extra costs if this well-researched report is accepted. I commend Miss Hyman's report to the House.
These costs vary due to differences of disability. Some disabilities involve loss of function and some an inability of disabled people to look after themselves. Some disabled people simply cannot do for themselves things that many people take for granted. Disability varies with each individual. There are many anomalies. I quote an example. Some disabled people who are completely bed-ridden, do not get the mobility allowance but may have high heating costs. There may be other disabled people, confined to wheelchairs, who receive the mobility allowance but perhaps have no abnormally high heating costs. All these apparent anomalies need sorting out.
Great gains were made under the last Administration. New initiatives were brought forward. But this Government must sort out the anomalies. They have to prepare to meet all these costs before progress can be made. As the Minister knows from his correspondence, Mr. Peter Large has been in contact with him. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to join with me in paying tribute to Peter Large, who has been pressing strongly the case for the disabled. My right hon. Friend quoted part of the correspondence. Peter Large is one of the most brilliant advocates of the disabled that the country has known. I am afraid, however, that the answers that he has received from the Minister have been highly unsatisfactory. Some of those replies were touched upon by my right hon. Friend.
In dealing with the objection of raising expectations, I would only say to the right hon. Gentleman that this argument was put at the time hon. Members were advocating what became the Chronically Sick and. Disabled Persons Act, piloted by my right hon. Friend. People said that a Bill of this kind could not be introduced because it would raise the expectations of disabled people. That is not a valid objection. Instead of raising only expectations, one increases the pressures on Ministers. That is how democracy works—by increasing expectations. It is a right and proper thing to do. Ministers in a democracy respond to pressure. The right hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced politician, knows that this is true. It is the job of disabled people to bring pressure to bear on Ministers. That is what we are attempting in these amendments.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not object to us bringing pressure to bear, nor assume that disabled people should be treated like children. They would resent that strongly. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make clear that he does not want to press that charge. Disabled people are realists and no one knows the facts of life, or poverty, more than them. By and large they are poor people. By and large, they get a bad deal in life. By and large, they suffer from double jeopardy. By and large, they bear heavy costs that are not borne by non-disabled people.
I hope that the Minister will think again about the amendments. I hope he will

bear in mind that the amendments are designed to ensure that the Government study the problems of disabled people and that they will endeavour to bring out a green paper which will allow the problems of disabled people to be discussed and debated. These are important amendments. Without planning, we get nowhere. Without a knowledge of our objectives, we shall make no progress.
I urge the Minister to accept the amendments to show that he takes these problems seriously and thereby give hon. Members something on which to bite so that when money is available—in fact I believe it is available now if one considers the amount given to wealthier sections of the community—disabled people will have a share of the largesse. No one deserves a bigger or better share than the disabled people of Britain. I support my right hon. Friend.

Mi. Tom Benyon: I am sympathetic, as, I am sure, are many hon. Members on both sides of the House, towards amendment; No. 73 and No. 74 which we are debating. I speak with a degree of understanding. I happen to be disabled, albeit in a minor way. I draw a disability pension arising from a previous period I enjoyed in the Services. To those who wonder what my disability is, and find their curiosity becoming overwhelming, I will tell them, quietly, after I have finished speaking, behind the Speaker's Chair. In all seriousness, I happen to be quite deaf. With such a disability, one speaks, I think, with a degree of sympathy for and imagination of the plight of disabled people in our society. Without such a disability, one would find that plight hard to imagine. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) will agree that society cannot fully compensate in cash terms someone who suffers a physical disability.
7.30 pm
Our concern transcends party politics. We want to assure people who suffer physical disabilities over which they have no control that they are regarded by the legislature with a degree of compassion. Disabled people should understand that we regard them as a special case. There is no more important special case. Disabled people do not enjoy special recognition. Blind people are an exception,


and the exceptional needs payment makes a gesture towards recognition of the problems. However, that provision does not go far enough.
The amendments correct, to some extent, the unsatisfactory position. They propose to recognise, through supplementary benefits, loneliness and misery and the bravery with which many disabled people face their plight. They recognise the extra costs which disabled people face when trying to live their lives as well as they can and to pay their way. Disabled people have additional expenses. Housing and special nursing cost money. Some disabled people have dietary problems and medical and recreational considerations to take into account. Many disabled people spend much of their time reading and that costs extra money. Special clothes and transport must also be paid for. In addition, many disabled people are unable to work.
The difficulty about the amendments is that they try to solve the problem through the use of supplementary benefits. That is not good enough. People who have to apply for supplementary benefit are in the role of supplicants. They do not claim as of right. To some extent the payment of supplementary benefits is ad hoc. It often depends on how well one puts one's case and how the person in charge responds. Some disabled people have difficulty in explaining their case. They do not have the advantage of a good command of English and the ability to present an argument. I do not cast any aspersions on the officers who dole out supplementary benefit. However, supplementary benefit is a piecemeal method of solving a problem.
The Minister should take an overall look at the problems of disabled people. He should take into account their special needs and at the same time bear in mind their employment problems or lack of employment opportunity. I believe that we should move towards giving grants to disabled people so that they do not have to apply for supplementary benefit. They should have a grant which is theirs by right. That would be a further step towards the tax credit system which many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome.
The proposals would cost a great deal of money. That is the problem. The Treasury is always faced with demands for more money. Nevertheless, I hope that we shall move towards the desirable goal of giving disabled people a grant as of right. I hope that we shall move in that direction when we can afford it; when we have created the wealth. I hope that we shall be able to tell people that that is the aim when inflation is reduced and the public sector borrowing requirement is under control. We should be able to tell disabled people that they are not forgotten, that they can take comfort because the Conservative Party holds them in high regard. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is deeply concerned about the problem and that he will take the argument to heart. The disadvantaged in our society should not suffer. Their needs must be recognised. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make an encouraging response.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I agree with all that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) said. However, the amendments do not ask for money. If the amendments are accepted, they will cost the Government not one penny.
I am vice-president of the Disablement Income Group which has been striving for years for the introduction of a disablement cost allowance. If the Government accept the amendments, it will be a step towards victory.
If the same amount of money were available, it would have to be spread more thinly because the demographic distribution of the elderly has changed dramatically and we have to face additional costs of caring for the frail elderly. We have totally failed to meet their needs. People of 70 years of age come to our surgeries and ask "Can you please find a way to assist me to help my 90-year-old father who is incontinent?" Such a request means that something is radically wrong with our provisions.
The Government should issue a consultative document on the needs of disabled people. One organisation, the Association of Directors of Social Services, has produced its own consultative


document—"Cuts in Public Expenditure". The association states:
It is widely recognised that existing personal social services have many shortcomings. Demand for services of all kinds continue to grow, in part stimulated by Government and Parliament, while present services are inadequate. Even if existing levels of spending were maintained but not increased, the quality of services available to the public would decline as a result of demographic changes.
That means that frail elderly people would be taking a much larger slice of a fixed, small, inadequate sum of money just to meet the growing demands created by themselves. The right hon. Gentleman had my support in the past when he fought for the rights of the underprivileged in other parts of the world and when he resigned over expenditure cuts at that time.
The report continues:
In our view, to suggest to those in need of help that they must wait until the rest of society is rich enough not to notice the sacrifice needed to provide aid is insulting and robs them of their dignity. Anyone can afford to be generous when they are wealthy.
We must be prepared to accept the burden and the responsibilities. We must be bold and say that those in need require our help because their position is deteriorating rapidly.

Mr. Tom Benyon: Does the hon. Member agree that one of the problems facing the disabled is that there is no articulate lobby to represent them and fight for their cause? The lobbies representing other disadvantaged people may be what I call middle-class pressure groups. They fight for, and obtain, a disproportionate amount of the resources available.
The other disadvantaged groups—with the disabled in the vanguard—find it hard to put their case and to find people who will articulate their cause on their behalf. Possibly they do not obtain a fair and equitable share of resources from the static cake.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I appreciate the tone in which the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) makes his comments, but I must disagree with him. I have some sympathy with what he said, but there is no excuse for Governments not knowing the requirements of the disabled. The Disablement Income Group, to which I belong, has gained access to the Minister. But hav-

ing gained that kind of access through the work of our voluntary organisations, we have still been unsuccessful. That is a tragedy.
We have gained access to Government and slated our case over the years, but we have not been successful. The organisations I referred to include the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Disablement Income Group and the Disabled Living Foundation. There are others and if I have omitted the names of some groups, I apologise. For example, there is a group operating in Shewsbury on behalf of the disabled. It concerns itself with the administration of mobility allowance and giving advice to the disabled who have mobility problems. The work of that group will end as a result of public expenditure cuts. I have appealed on its behalf to the Government, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respond to that appeal. If that organisation ceases to operate, we shall take from the disabled a much needed service. At the same time, those who work for that organisation will be denied the opportunity to do that work.
If I were asked to define the disabled and their needs, I should have to go back to Peter. Large, who is an expert in this area. He knows from his own experience the difficulties of the disabled. Perhaps I may add to the Peter Large story. He is a severely handicapped person with a tremendous brain who, in many ways, survives because of the devotion of his wife.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said that where there was a disabled person there was a disabled family. Such families suffer all too often. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said loudly and clearly, for many families an additional 20 to 25 per cent. of their incomes must be spent to meet the needs of the disabled member of the family.
If it is accepted that caring for the frail and elderly within the social services will absorb more and more of our limited resources, the amount left over for the disabled will get smaller and smaller. We cannot top up those resources through supplementary benefit, because an edict has gone out from the Department to t he effect that where the cost of a social service benefit increases, the


additional cost must not be met by supplementary benefit. That is a "Catch 22" situation for the disabled.
Before I run through my list of the needs of the disabled, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept these amendments. They are merely a step on the way and will cost no money. We are putting down a marker for what can and should be done and the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if he comes under pressure later to implement our proposals. That is the nature of politics and of campaigning in this context. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman must accept the amendments.
7.45 pm
My list of the needs of the disabled is almost identical to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. We take heating and clothing for granted but, to the elderly and those immobile in their own homes, the provision of clothing and heating presents difficulties. For many disabled people the very act of fidgeting—which may be part of their disability—wears out their clothing. The very act of walking through their homes and using the walls for support increases the need for redecoration. The very act of walking, staggering or struggling upstairs and the need to turn round can mean additional costs in carpeting. The disabled who are tucked away have to live with these problems. There is no provision in the supplementary benefit scheme for coping with those difficulties.
Meals on wheels are absolutely essential, but they have been cut. Home help is absolutely vital to many families and has been cut. Communication and access are now being limited severely for the disabled and mobility is becoming increasingly difficult because not enough local authorities are providing free transport. Rent factors and home alterations are not being dealt with adequately nor is the replacement of furniture for the disabled. We cannot go on relying on a good neighbour policy. We can do something positive at no cost.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept these amendments.

Mr. Prentice: I shall deal first with the amendment and then with some of

the more general comments which have been made in a debate which has expressed widespread concern about the needs of the disabled. That concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House who have a long record of hard work for the disabled.
The amendments seek to specify, in terms of the supplementary benefit scheme, a special place for the chronically sick and disabled. With respect to those who tabled the amendment, I say that this is not the way to help the disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) made this point. He was supporting what others had said about the financial needs of disabled persons. In effect, he was supporting the need for some kind of disability income. I want to come to that later. He was saying that it was not appropriate to write that into the supplementary benefit scheme as such, and I profoundly agree with him.
The supplementary benefit scheme is designed for people on very low incomes. It is designed to prevent them from falling below the basic level, as defined by the House, irrespective of how their poverty has been caused, irrespective of whether they have a small income because of bad health, disability or unemployment or because they are deserted wives or the families of people who are in prison, or for whatever reason. There are many reasons why people apply to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and the job of the commission is to assess their needs. Therefore, any progress that we make along the lines of a disability income should not be made in the way suggested in the amendments.
In addition, I must make the point which has been made, directly or indirectly, by several hon. Members, that the financial needs of the disabled will vary enormously according to the nature of their disabilities. I must go on to point out that the provisions of the Bill and the regulations that will be made under it will be helpful to disabled and chronically sick people in many circumstances. Many of the needs listed by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) are covered to some degree—not necessarily in the form that he put them—in the explanatory literature that we have issued—the annex to the notes on clauses —about the nature of the regulations that will be made for people's special needs.
The House will not want me to quote at length, but I shall give one or two examples. There will be provision for extra heating where that is required on health grounds. There can be provision for special diets which may be related to certain specified illnesses. There will be allowances for extra laundry costs, in circumstances where those costs arise from a particular illness or disability. There can be allowances for extra expense on the maintenance and replacement of clothing or footwear where this is related to a disability. In other words, there can be special payments within the supplementary benefit scheme relevant to needs which arise from disablement. Indeed, that has been so in the past and will be so in the future.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the needs of many disabled is to be able to rely on the home-help service. Will he confirm that his Department has already told the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that where local authorities put on charges for home-helps, they will not be able to get help from the Department through the discretion left in the Bill?

Mr. Prentice: That does not arise directly from the amendment. I shall want to say something about the general needs of the disabled, including a passing reference to the question whether Government policies are leading to cuts in services for the disabled.
On the specific point, it never has been and never could be the function of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to fill in every gap left by local authorities. In other words, we have not said and do not now say, that local authorities might or might not make a specific provision and that, if they do not, it is automatically the duty of the Supplementary Benefits Commission—or in future the Department—to fill that need. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is some new instruction, he is mistaken. That has never been the general policy.
I turn now to the broader issues in the debate, because hon. Members have properly used the terms of the amendment as the basis for a short but valuable debate on the needs of the disabled. Several hon. Members have spoken about the financial needs arising from disable-

ment. In one way or another, every speaker in the debate has referred to the fact that, apart from all the other disadvantages of being severely disabled, in most cases extra financial costs fall on the disabled person and his or her family. Such costs will vary with the nature of the disability, but I acknowledge that they can be heavy and that society does not make and never has made provision for disabled people in the general sense.
I think that we can divide disabled people into two categories. There are those who get a degree of financial income because of the way in which their disabilities were caused. The three obvious examples are the war disabled, those disabled from industrial injuries and those who have suffered accidents in circumstances where someone else was negligent and where they have been able to obtain damages as a result. People in those categories get some financial compensation related to their disabilities. It may or may not be adequate, but it is something. But for those whose disabilities have arisen in other ways, society has not at any time made a specific financial provision related to their disablement.
If I am asked whether I am in favour of a general disability income, I give the emphatic answer "Yes", for the reasons given by many hon. Members. That objective was stated in the Conservative Party's manifesto and it remains the objective. The question is: how and when?
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) accused the Government of stopping work which he said was going on in this area, as though in some way or another the change of Government had made a difference. With respect, it made no difference. The problem that I have described—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) was not present. If he had been present, he would have heard a number of excellent speeches on the need for a disability income. He will know as well as I know, and so does the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, that no disability income was provided by the Labour Government and that there were no concrete plans to do so.
The problem has been studied within the DHSS, but no plans had been


announced and no financial provision had been made in the public expenditure White Papers produced by the Labour Government and which we inherited. Therefore, I say to him—and if he is going to intervene, I hope that he will deal with this point—that there would have been no disability income if the Labour Party had won the election. The position would have been the same as it is now.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I said that we introduced three important new cash benefits for the disabled. We were in the process of developing proposals for a further new benefit. A Green Paper was being prepared by the Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman, addressing the all-party disablement group, made it clear that work on that Green Paper had ceased. It is not only my view, but the view of the Disablement Income Group and of many other representative organisations that to stop work on that Green Paper was a setback for the disabled. There is no other way of looking at this very important point.

Mr. Prentice: With respect, it was not a setback for the disabled. Green Papers butter no parsnips. There was and would have been no disability income at this stage, nor for some years to come.
I have been taken to task because I have said on several occasions—at the meeting to which reference has been made and in my correspondence with Mr. Peter Large, and I join enthusiastically in the tribute paid by several hon. Members to Mr. Large for his work—that to produce a Green Paper or a similar document, holding out the expectation of meaningful progress towards a disability income in the next year or two, would be to raise expectations that could not be fulfilled. That would be of no service to the disabled.

8 pm

Mr. Ashley: Does the Minister accept that the disabled want a disablement cost allowance? Producing a Green Paper would bring pressure to bear upon the Government to introduce that allowance earlier than otherwise would have been the case. He told the all-party group on disablement, of which I am chairman that he would not produce a Green Paper. By dropping the previous Admin-

istration's Green Paper he has damaged the interests of the disabled.

Mr. Prentice: I challenge the hon. Gentleman's phrase "dropping the Green Paper". When the previous Labour Administration were in office there was no public announcement of a Green Paper. That has surfaced since the election. We discovered that instructions had been given for some preparatory work to be undertaken on the problem. I have been told several times in debates about arguments between Ministers in the DHSS and the Treasury. I imagine that similar arguments took place when the previous Administration were in office. Even if the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe wanted to say that a Green Paper was being prepared, I expect that he is under considerable pressure not to say so.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I do not understand my right hon. Friend's point about raising expectations in a Green Paper. It was a Conservative manifesto commitment—admittedly a long-term commitment—to provide for the disabled. The expectations of the disabled are already riding quite high.

Mr. Prentice: Perhaps my hon. Friend could reflect on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who said, quite rightly, that the publication of a Green Paper would raise expectations, that the pressure would be greater, and that the implementation of any proposal would be faster than otherwise would have been the case. Given that fact, and given the general economic position that we face, we could not begin to implement a disability income within the next few years. Therefore, we should not produce a Green Paper in the near future because it would inevitably lead to the sort of pressure and expectations that have been described by many hon. Members.
It is all very well for our reach to exceed our grasp, but if it exceeds it to too great an extent we shall create a position in which people will feel, quite properly, let down. I would rather promise very little now, and ultimately achieve more than people expect, than to perform the sort of operation which we became accustomed to under the


previous Administration, of promises made, expectations raised and people let down. That process was bad not only for the Labour Party but for democracy. People became more and more cynical about politics and politicians.
If we are not able to make extra provision for the disabled for some years to come—that would be the case under either a Labour or Conservative Government—it is better to say so, and say so frankly, than to raise hopes that will not be fulfilled.
If we were to provide for all disabled people—no matter how their disability occurred—a scheme comparable to that which exists for the war and industrial disabled, it would cost between £2 billion and £3 billion a year. I know that that figure has been challenged in many quarters, but it is a reasonable estimate. Anyone who considers the public expenditure figures will realise that such a provision is out of the question for along time.
Reference has been made to my correspondence with Peter Large. He realised that we could not make such a commitment, and said that he would expect only small steps to be taken in the early years. If those steps are to be meaningful steps, and if they are to help substantial numbers of severely disabled people, we are talking in terms of very large sums indeed. Against that background it is better to state clearly that we cannot make progress in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The right hon. Gentleman would say that.

Mr. Prentice: When the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe opened the debate, he referred to my position in relation to whether the disabled should share in the sacrifices that the country is expected to make. In many of my speeches on the subject I made two essential points. First, there have not been any cuts in the financial provisions made by central Government which affect the disabled.

Mr. Canavan: What?

Mr. Prentice: There have not been any cuts. Indeed, there have been some modest improvements. Because of the controversial way in which some hon. Members are treating the subject—there is no need for it—I shall remind the House of one or two of these modest

improvements. I agree that they are not world shaking improvements. We phased in mobility allowance for the 60- to 65year-olds earlier than the previous Labour Administration had planned, and in one group instead of two groups as they had proposed. We removed VAT from the cars provided for Motability. We took war widows' pensions out of tax. In clause 14 we make improvements in arrangements for war pension appeals.
All those are modest achievements, but they are advances on behalf of the disabled which were not made by the previous Administration. Hon. Members should not refer to cuts in relation to the disabled. We have made, here and there, some modest improvements. I shall seek every possible opportunity to make further improvements in the future.
Local Government services are of vital importance to the disabled, the chronic sick, the frail elderly, and many other vulnerable groups in our society. We have said over and over again to local authorities that they should not make cuts that affect those groups. We realise how difficult that is. In general, and for reasons which I would defend at length, we are asking local authorities to cut back on their planned expenditure. They have difficult choices to make—in many ways more difficult than those that have to be made in national Government. We have asked them not to make cuts that would affect the most vulnerable sections of our society, and in the overwhelming majority of cases they are responding.
I believe that every hon. Member in the House will be united on one matter, namely, that we are glad that in the past 10 years the expenditure by local authorities on services for the disabled, the sick, the frail elderly and similar groups, has doubled in real terms. The greater part of that increase took place in the early 1970s, under the Conservative Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It was part of a general movement of opinion expressed in the House by the passage of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe for giving a lead on that matter. Equally, he will wish to pay a tribute in the sense that those who sponsored the measure with him were members of all political parties. This measure was not sponsored


by one man or one party, it was an expression of the desire of the House. It reflected opinion in the country and in many of the most progressive local authorities, led by all political parties, who were doing more than they were being urged to do by the House. Progress was made during the early 1970s. From 1976 onwards, because of financial constraints, there was a levelling out in the growth of services. But that did not start last May. It began in 1976 when the IMF put pressure on public expenditure. The fact remains that in 1980 we are doing more than we were in 1970, but we are still not doing enough. We need to do much more and I believe we shall. These aspirations are common to all parties, and we do not need to divide on party lines.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I entirely reject the Minister's reply. He doubted whether our amendments were the best way of helping the disabled. The Minister even

seemed to imply that he would like to see stronger amendments. If that is so, he should make a start by accepting our very modest amendments.

The previous Labour Government had in preparation a Green Paper as a consultative document on a new and comprehensive benefit for disabled people. That was the first step on the road to widening provision for the disabled. It is not just my view, but that of representatives of disabled people themselves that to have stopped that work was a setback for the disabled of this country. I hope that some Conservative right hon. and hon. Members will join us in support of these amendments. I hope that they will join us in the Lobby in rejecting the reply we have had tonight.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided, Ayes 254, Noes 294.

Division No. 234]
AYES
[8.10 pm


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gourlay, Harry


Adams, Allen
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Graham, Ted


Allaun, Frank
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Deakins, Eric
Grant, John (Islington C)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Dixon, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Dobson, Frank
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dormand, Jack
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Douglas, Dick
Haynes, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dubs, Alfred
Heffer, Eric S.


Bldwell, Sydney
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunlop, John
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Home Robertson, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Dunnett, Jack
Homewood, William


Bradley, Tom
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hooley, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Horam, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eastham, Ken
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Huckfield, Les


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
English, Michael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Evans, John (Newton)
Janner, Hon Greville


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Harry
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cant, R. B.
Field, Frank
John, Brynmor


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cartwright, John
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Russell


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kilfedder, James A.


Cohen, Stanley
Ford, Ben
Kilroy-Sllk, Robert


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Forrester, John
Kinnock, Nell


Conlan, Bernard
Foster, Derek
Lambie, David


Cowans, Harry
Fouikes, George
Lamborn, Harry


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Lamond, James


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Crowther, J. S.
Freud, Clement
Lelghton, Ronald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
George, Bruce
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur
Glnsburg, David
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)
Golding, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)




Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Parry, Robert
Stoddart, David


McCartney, Hugh
Pavitt, Laurie
Stott, Roger


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Pendry, Tom
Strang, Gavin


McElhone, Frank
Penhallgon, David
Straw, Jack


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch(S Down)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


McKelvey, William
Prescott, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Maclennan, Robert
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Race, Reg
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


McNally, Thomas
Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


McNamara, Kevin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Magee, Bryan
Richardson, Jo
Tilley, John


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shettles'n)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Torney, Tom


Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Robertson, George
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Maxton, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Watkins, David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rooker, J. W.
Weetch, Ken


Meacher, Michael
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Wellbeloved, James


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Welsh, Michael


Mikardo, Ian
Rowlands,Ted
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Ryman, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Sandelson, Nevilie
Whitlock, William


Molyneaux, James
Sever, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sheerman, Barry
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Morton, George
Short, Mrs Renée
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Newens, Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Winnick, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Silverman, Julius
Woodall, Alec


Ogden, Eric
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Woolmer, Kenneth


O'Halloran, Michael
Snape, Peter
Wright, Sheila


O'Neill, Martin
Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton East)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel



Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Palmer, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. James Hamilton and


Parker, John
Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Donald Coleman.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Aitken Jonathan
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fox, Marcus


Alexander, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Ancram, Michael
Channon, Paul
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Arnold, Tom
Chapman, Sydney
Fry, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, W. S.
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Banks, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bell, Sir Ronald
Clegg, Sir Walter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Cope,John
Goodhart, Philip


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Corrie, John
Goodhew, Victor


Best, Keith
Costain, A.P.
Goodlad, Alastair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Critchley, Julian
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Crouch, David
Gow, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Blackburn, John
Dickens, Geoffrey
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Blaker, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen
Gray, Hamish


Body, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Greenway, Harry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Denshore
Grieve, Percy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden Andrew
Durant, Tony
Grist, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dykes, Hugh
Grylls, Michael


Braine, sir Bernard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Gummor, John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm &amp; Ew'll)


Brinton, Tim
Eggar, Timothy
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brittan, Leon
Elliott, Sir William
Hannam, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Emery, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Brotherton, Michael
Eyre, Reginald
Hastings, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Falrgrieve, Russell
Hawkins, Paul


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Hawksley, Warren


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Farr, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Buck, Antony
Fell, Anthony
Heddle, John


Budgen, Nick
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Henderson, Barry


Bulmer, Esmond
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burden, F. A.
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hill, James


Butcher, John
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh,N)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Butler, Hon Adam
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hooson, Tom


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Forman, Nigel
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)




Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Moore, John
Speed, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morgan, Geraint
Speller, Tony


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Spence, John


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Mudd, David
Sproat, Iain


Jessel, Toby
Murphy, Christopher
Squire, Robin


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Myles, David
Stainton, Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Neale, Gerrard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Needham, Richard
Stanley, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Martin


Kimball, Marcus
Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Newton, Tony
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
Stokes, John


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lamont, Norman
Osborn, John
Tapsell, Peter


Lang, Ian
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Langtord-Holt, Sir John
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Latham, Michael
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Tebbit, Norman


Lawrence, Ivan
Parkinson, Cecil
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lawson, Nigel
Parris, Matthew
Thompson, Donald


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pawsey, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Percival, Sir Ian
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pink, R. Bonner
Trippier, David


Loverldge, John
Pollock, Alexander
Trotter, Neville


Luce, Richard
Porter, George
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lyell, Nicholas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


McCrindle, Robert
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Viggers, Peter


Macfarlane, Neil
Prior, Rt Hon James
Waddington, David


MacGregor, John
Proctor, K. Harvey
Waldegrave, Hon William


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Raison, Timothy
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rathbone, Tim
Wall, Patrick


McQuarrie, Albert
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Waller, Garry


Madel, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walters, Dennis


Major, John
Renton, Tim
Ward, John


Marland, Paul
Rhodes, James, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Marlow, Tony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Watson, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mates, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wheeler, John


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Rossi, Hugh
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mawby, Ray
Rost, Peter
Wickenden, Keith


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Scott, Nicholas
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Mellor, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wolfson, Mark


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Shepherd, Rlchard(Aldridge-Br'hills)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Shersby, Michael



Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Silvester, Fred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moate, Roger
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Monro, Hector
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Montgomery, Fergus

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Orme: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 43, line 38, leave out subparagraphs (3) and (4).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also take the following amendments: No. 35, in page 44, line 15, column 1, at end insert
'provided that the said prescribed conditions shall not distinguish between persons required to register for work, who have been in receipt of benefit for 15 months or more, under section 5 of this Act and persons not so required'.
No. 36, in page 44, line 41, column 1, at end insert
'provided that the said prescribed conditions shall not distinguish between persons required to register for work, who have been in receipt

of benefits for 15 months or more, under section 5 of this Act and persons not so required'.
No. 37, in page 44, line 50, at end insert
'(6) If regulations prescribe as one of the conditions mentioned in the table in subparagraph (3) of this paragraph that a person shall have been in receipt of supplementary benefit during a prescribed period or periods, that condition shall be deemed to be satisfied in the case of a person who, but for that condition, would have been entitled to receive supplementary benefit throughout the prescribed period or periods.'
No. 58, in page 66, line 11, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
No. 79, in page 66, line 36, column 1, at end insert
'provided that the said prescribed conditions shall not distinguish between persons required


to register for work, who have been in receipt of benefits for 15 months or more, under section 5 of this Act and persons not so required.'.
No. 80, in page 67, line 14, column 1, at end insert:
'provided that the said prescribed conditions shall not distinguish between persons required to register for work, who have been in receipt of benefits for 15 months or more, under section 5 of this Act and persons not so required.'.
No. 53, in page 67, line 23, at end insert—
'(6) If regulations prescribe as one of the conditions mentioned in the table in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph that a person shall have been in receipt of supplementary benefit during a prescribed period or periods, that condition shall be deemed to be satisfied in the case of a person who, but for that condition, would have been entitled to receive supplementary benefit throughout the prescribed period or periods.'

Mr. Orme: We want to have a short debate on this group of amendments, if that is agreeable to the Minister. We divided extensively in Committee on these issues. My hon. Friends would like a short debate also on amendments Nos. 40 and 60 about the single homeless, not least in view of the tragedy that has recently occurred.
Amendment No. 34 would delete the table which provides for the main supplementary benefits rates to be brought into line with the national insurance benefit rates. The alignment of the rates is not objectionable in principle, but the alignment under the main recommendation is downwards, not up. The practical effect is to cut 40p from a single person's long-term supplementary benefit rate and 35p from that of a married couple. The much smaller number of short-term claimants would gain only 20p for a single person and 20p for a married couple.
The arguments in favour of alignment are weak. The Under-Secretary described the proposal as a "cornerstone of the simplification" in Standing Committee. However, it is a minor simplification because the supplementary benefits scale rates do not represent the amounts of benefit paid to claimants but are merely one element in the calculation. The hon. Lady also argued that because of the small differential there are:
a large number of claimants with very small entitlement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 February 1980; c. 594].

However, the proposed alignment will not alter that. It will just mean that different people are affected.
Deleting the table would not directly affect the treatment of the long-term unemployed since the table does not specify which categories of claimants other than pensioners would get the long-term rates. However, the case for the payment of the long-term rates to the unemployed can be argued—and we shall argue it in respect of amendments Nos. 35 and 36.
A major disadvantage of a statutory link is that if the Government decide to save money by cutting unemployment and sickness benefit rates—we are hearing harrowing stories about the Government's proposals, and most Labour Members await with trepidation the publication of the White Paper and the Chancellor's statement next week—the supplementary benefit rates would automatically be cut by the same amount. Ever if it were right to bring the supplementary benefit and the national insurance rates into line this year, it would still be wrong to provide by statute that they should automatically remain in line for future years. Deleting the table does not tie the Government to any pattern of benefit rate. It leaves them free to decide on the matter each year.
Amendment No. 37 deals with the NCIP trap which was dealt with in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) in Standing Committee. I do not need to go in detail over the ground again.
I wish to refer to the long-term unemployed because last night I could hardly believe my ears when a Conservative Member advocated a long-term rate for the unemployed. I find it more than refreshing to hear that from the Conservative Benches. If any group in our society is at the moment disadvantaged it is the long-term unemployed. It is no good saying to them in places like the North-East, in parts of Scotland, or Merseyside, in South Wales, in the South-West and in parts of Norfolk where high levels of unemployment obtain "the way to resolve this matter is to find a job"—certainly not when the Government are creating unemployment.
The long-term rates for the unemployed are well overdue. We discussed


this in Committee, and the fact that the previous Government had not got round to doing anything about it. However, that does not mean that the issue should not be advocated, especially against a background of rising unemployment and rising inflation. Many of the unemployed are family people who are feeling the effects of the present policy of the Government.
8.30 pm
I address myself to the specific group of amendments dealing with the issues that I wish to raise. There are other wider issues involved, but these are some of the issues that we covered in great detail in Committee. No doubt the Minister will give his standard reply. We cannot expect anything new, not after the way we debated these issues at length in Committee. But it is essential to put on record on the Floor of the House that the issues in these amendments are of crucial importance to the people whom they concern.

Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) correctly said that we debated all the issues covered by these amendments in Committee. Nevertheless, they are important. Although I do not want to detain the House too long, an explanation is due on each of the three main subjects covered in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
I will, first of all, speak to amendments Nos. 37 and 53 which deal with what has been described as the "NCIP trap"—NCIP being the non-contributory invalidity pension. Perhaps the group for whom the problem is most acute is the 16-yearolds who receive this pension. It presents a worrying problem for parents who are trying to decide what is best for their children. Because the rate of the NCIP is higher than the ordinary rate of supplementary benefit for young people of that age, they cannot qualify for supplementary benefit unless they suffer a loss of income. If they accept that loss of income and claim supplementary benefit, in order to qualify for higher, long-term rates, they have to accept the lower income level for two years. Under the revised scheme the waiting period for the long-term rates will be reduced from two years to one year, but this does not remove the anomaly.
In Committee I explained that we had been studying this problem, and I am pleased to tell the House that, from the introduction of the new supplementary benefits scheme in November of this year, it will be possible for young sick and disabled people aged 16 to 17 years to qualify for supplementary benefit at the long-term rate after one year of being in receipt of a NCIP. No amendment is needed for this purpose. The change will be provided for in the regulations to be made under the Bill.
Naturally, I recognise that that does not remove the anomaly altogether. But it is the only practical change I am able to announce within existing constraints and I hope that it will remove at least part of the worrying aspect of this problem. The cost of the change will be about £500,000 in a full year. It is a modest amount, which we can cover within the overall nil-cost supplementary benefit package.
I turn to the group of amendments dealing with the long-term unemployed. A great deal of support has been expressed outside the House, and on both sides of the House, for extending to the unemployed the long-term rates of supplementary benefit. But I must repeat the reply that I have given, and make the obvious point that government is about priorities.
The cost of providing what the Opposition have asked for would be about £65 million in a year. Even if we were to make it available after 15 months, which is suggested in amendments Nos. 35 and 36, it would still cost £50 million in a year. To pay unemployment benefit at the higher long-term rate to those who had been continuously unemployed for a year or more could cost substantially more.
Our priorities are different. I think that the House recognises that. Labour hon. Members have been prepared to accept our priorities, at least to the extent that they deliberately shift more of the payments of supplementary benefit towards larger families. I have had to state the obvious several times—that the Opposition cannot make a priority of everything at the same time. For precisely the same reason, the Labour Government, too, did not extend the higher rate to the long-term unemployed. The right hon.


Member for Salford, West said just now that they did not get around to it. I do not think that they would have got around to it by now if they had been in office.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was refreshing to hear a Conservative hon. Member say last night that this reform should be made. I think that we all agree that we should like to see it made, but I repeat what I said in Committee. I do not argue against the amendment in principle; I argue against it simply because of what it would cost. It is not compatible with the nil-cost package that is the basis of the scheme.

Mr. Orme: It is not a nil-cost Bill. It saves a considerable amount of public expenditure. We are talking about the Bill as a whole. We have taken a decision on the linkage for pensioners, which will lead to a considerable saving in future years. There are other aspects of the Bill that are not on a nil-cost basis. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman cannot reject the amendment because the Bill is nil-cost. It stands as a whole. Otherwise, it would not be the Social Security Bill.

Mr. Prentice: The Bill does not stand as a whole as regards the nil-cost formula. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that clause 1 could lead to a saving of public expenditure in a year in which earnings rose by more than prices. It is equally true that the clause that paves the way for implementing the European Community directives on similar treatment for men and women will have a net cost.
When we use the expression "nil-cost package", we are talking about the reformed system of supplementary benefit. We are talking about the subject matter of the consultative document on social assistance, issued when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. It is to that part of the Bill that I refer when I use the term "nil-cost package".
I turn to amendments Nos. 34 and 58, which deal with the alignment of the supplementary benefit rates with the rates of national insurance benefits. We cannot accept the amendments, for two reasons, which will be familiar to hon. Members, certainly to those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee. The first reason is again the cost. The changes are an essential element in the overall

package of changes that have enabled us to put the review together. Alignment of the supplementary benefit rates with the corresponding pension rates makes a saving of over £30 million a year. That has been used to enable improvements elsewhere in the scheme; notably in qualifying conditions in the long-term scale rate, and in the children's rates.
Secondly, alignment for pensioners represents a very important element in our objective of achieving a simpler and a more easily understood supplementary benefit scheme. The alignment of the rates will remove one of the causes of confusion. It will lead to fewer claims being made on supplementary benefit for very small amounts—a result of the present situation. The report on the review of the supplementary benefits scheme made a strong case for any redistribution of resources within the scheme to be made towards families with children, not pensioners. Analysis of the family expenditure survey supports that view. For example, during the period 1970–1977 the real income of all households receiving supplementary benefit—the majority are pensioners—has risen faster than the average for all households. That level has risen by 12 per cent., compared with a national average of 5 per cent. I am not complacent about that. I agreed with an Opposition Member who said yesterday that if we spoke of a rise in the real living standards of those on supplementary benefit, we were talking of those who had started on a low basis. Those people still have an unsatisfactory standard of living. Nevertheless, a comparison can be made. Over that period of seven years there was a 12 per cent. increase, compared with an average increase of 5 per cent. among the population as a whole.
Among families with children that received supplementary benefit there was a rise of only 4 per cent. Among married couples with children—mainly the unemployed who did not receive the long-term rate—there was a rise of only 1 per cent. Those on the long-term rate are more able to bear any holding-back on the real increase in their income. I stress that we are discussing very small amounts. Single pensioners will receive 40p less at the November uprating this year. Married pensioners will receive 35p less. Those sums should be considered against the present rates of £37·65 for a


married couple and £23·70 for a single person.
The rates will be increased this year. However, as a result of the alignment, the increase will be slightly less. That increase will happen only once. Indeed, not every pensioner will be adversely affected. The changes are part of the package. Some claimants will receive more, others less.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman has said that it will happen only once. I agree that in terms of cash, that is so. We shall not be able to predict what might have happened if the two rates had remained separate. Those on supplementary benefit may lose substantial amounts in future. They will now be tied to national insurance rates.

Mr. Prentice: That would happen only if a future Government were to decide to widen the gap, and to make a larger adjustment to supplementary benefit rates than to pensions. It could happen in theory, but it is unlikely. There is no rationale for the present small differences in rates. They are largely a result of historical accident.
Alignment is therefore an important part of the proposals for simplification. One must bear in mind that pensioners are particularly affected. It has the advantage that the overall benefit system will be easier to understand. The additional component in the pension will later lift more people off the supplementary scale. Fewer retirement pensioners will qualify for the small amounts that we have been discussing. Frequently those small amounts are not taken up. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has taken energetic steps to encourage take-up. It has simplified its procedures, forms and so on.
However, it makes no sense to structure the benefit system so that a large number of claims are possible for very small amounts of money. In its administration paper on take-up of benefit the Supplementary Benefits Commission recognised that it would be virtually impossible to ensure full take-up, because of that problem in particular. People will, quite rationally, not bother to claim small amounts.

Mr. Field: I am puzzled by the Minister's constant reference to small amounts. The 1977 annual report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission details the amount of the supplementary benefits unclaimed by groups of claimants. For those below retirement age the average payment is in excess of £9 per claimant. Does the right hon. Gentleman call that small?

Mr. Prentice: I agree that many categories do not take up their entitlement, and that includes those who, for whatever reason, forgo the opportunity to claim quite large amounts.
The SBC report identifies one reason for low take-up. For retirement pensioners in particular there may be only a small gap between the basic pension and the basic pension with the addition of the amounts that we are talking of. That strengthens the case for alignment.
I conclude by returning to the financial aspect. In two of the groups of amendments before us the Opposition are once again proposing substantial extra public expenditure. Even the more modest objective for the long-term unemployed of the 15-month figure would cost about £50 million in a full year. If the alignment proposals were not carried forward, it would cost £30 million. That is a total of £80 million. The Opposition cannot have it all ways. If they want the improvements included in other parts of the package, it is unrealistic to press amendments costing such large sums.

Mr. Field: I gather that we shall vote on this group of amendments, and I welcome that. It is probably the most important group discussed today.
The Minister's defence of not extending the long-term rate to the unemployed was the standard one—that the previous Labour Government did not do so. They therefore stand condemned for that.
The previous Government have a slightly better defence than this Administration. During their stewardship, which, granted, is longer than that of this Government, they implemented other important reforms. The introduction of child benefit was one, although we had to drag that measure, kicking and screaming, from them. An extra £1·5 billion went to families with children. That is a considerable achievement, although I


agree that it is no excuse for not extending the long-term rates to the unemployed.
Many of the Minister's arguments supported our case. He gave us interesting figures from the family expenditure survey. I did not quite grasp the period in question.

Mr. Prentice: From 1970 to 1977.

Mr. Field: During that period, the living standards of the vast majority of people on benefits, namely pensioners, rose by 12 per cent., against 1 per cent. for the unemployed. That is a powerful argument on behalf of the unemployed.
There are three other important reasons for the amendments. First, the unemployed are the largest group of claimants below pensionable age on supplementary benefits. The Government are careful not to say to what level they think unemployment will rise to during the coming 12 months, but we know that the Government Actuary estimates a rise of 300,000 in the next year. That is why the Government brought in earlier this year amending regulations for national insurance contributions. Unemployment is on the increase.
Secondly, all the evidence that the SBC and outside bodies have published shows that the poorest group of claimants are the unemployed, particularly those with children. We are scrabbling around among the poor to make that distinction. All those dependent on supplementary benefits are poor, but if we have to carry out the unpleasant task of distinguishing who is the poorest, all the research indicates that the unemployed with children are suffering the most desperate poverty in our society.
The reports that the SBC submitted to the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth painted not just an unpleasant picture but an horrendous picture of life on benefit for the unemployecl—the difficulties of budgeting, the lack of savings and the need to borrow even to pay for food. That is the lifestyle of today's unemployed.
In rejecting our amendments, the Minister had no argument except that of cost. He calmly stated that it is a nil package. That clinical phrase means that the unemployed will have to wait that much longer.
The third reason why the amendments should be accepted is that not only is unemployment on the increase, but the rate of long-term unemployment is rising. I wish to present the figures carefully, because they should not be misunderstood. If we define long-term unemployment as one year or more, it is true that there were more long-term unemployed in the 1930s than there are today, but if we break down the totals and consider the proportion of those who have been unemployed for a year or more we see that there is a higher proportion of long-term unemployed today than in the peak year of unemployment of 1933.
The Minister says that an amendment that would help to soften the blow of long-term unemployment must be resisted on the grounds that "It is a nil package". We have failed to get a clear statement about what "nil package" means. We do not have a financial memorandum at the beginning of the amended Bill, but there were estimated costs and savings in a crucial few cases of the original Bill.
One of the savings arose from putting back towards the end of the month the date for starting the uprating of benefits. We have teased out of the Government in Committee and on the Floor of the House that they will probably save two weeks, rather than one, in pushing back the uprating. Their calculations for savings were based on an inflation of 10 per cent., but we are facing a rate of 20 per cent. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that it is a nil package and we are considering only the supplementary benefit component of the package. Even on that component part, the Government will make savings well in excess of what they outlined in their nil package cost.
We want an undertaking that, if the savings are greater than the Government estimated, the long-term unemployed will be at the top of their list rather than at the bottom.
I am pleased that we are having a full debate on this group of amendments, some of which cover the long-term unemployed. I wish to comment briefly on two other issues to which the Minister referred. Everyone in the House welcomes the realignment of the relative value of benefits to favour claimants with children. It is well established that this group is the most hard pressed. There will be a


small compensation for them in the Bill. But those who urged the changes never thought that the resources of other poor people would be taken to increase the living standards of the poor with children. We hoped for a major redistribution from those in society who are well placed, to the poor, especially those with children. There is a credit for the Government. No one wishes to detract from that fact. But it must be underlined how limited is that change.
Another welcome announcement involves the changes for the younger claimants of the non-contributory invalidity pension. I was puzzled by the Minister's concentration on young claimants. It did not take long for me to twig that the Government were concentrating on that group because it was presumably the smallest group. By conceding to that group, the cost of the reform was kept to the minimum. It is a welcome reform. We are grateful to the Minister. But he knows, as we know, that it goes not nearly far enough.
I should like to return to the plight of the long-term unemployed. There is nothing for them in the Bill. They are the most hard pressed group of claimants and the most hard pressed of poor people. It is not an adequate defence for the Government to say that the previous Labour Government did nothing for the long-term unemployed. The Government are right to say that. Members of the previous Labour Government should hang their heads in shame that they did not concede the legitimate demands of the long-term unemployed. I hope that we shall not have to wait until the end of this Parliament before this necessary reform for the long-term unemployed is on the statute book.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I suppose that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I should welcome the small concession that the Minister has made. But we in the Opposition are disappointed that he has nothing to offer the long-term unemployed. He should put himself in the position of some of my constituents, who have been out of work

for 15 or 16 months. They have tried, throughout that period, to get jobs. Each time someone else gets the job. They feel aggrieved. Having spent as long on these unemployment rates, and having suffered extreme poverty, they will never get up to what are supposed to be the minimum levels for long-term rates, because the Government are not prepared to help them. At the same time, there is less chance of their getting a job. In any competition for a job, employers will almost always take on the person who has been out of work the shortest time.
If the Minister cannot put the long-term unemployed up to the long-term rates, he should discuss with his colleagues in Government other ways of helping the long-term unemployed. He could consider giving a premium to firms which take on people who have been out of work for a long time. Some preference could be shown to redress the balance and help those long-term unemployed who go for a job only to find that someone who has been out of work for a shorter time is almost always accepted. The long-term unemployed are caught in a trap. They receive benefits far below what is adequate. At the same time, each week and each month that they remain out of work their chances of getting a job become worse. It is a tragedy that the Government will not recognise this problem. Many of the long-term unemployed desperately want a job. Yet they find that the Government totally turn their back.
Through their industrial policy, the Government are cutting back on the number of jobs available. By their social policy, the Government are denying these people the benefit that they badly need. I hope that we can move to a Division, although it is a pity that we have to vote on amendment No. 34. In my view, the amendments dealing with the long-term unemployed are more important. I hope that the Division will be seen outside as a clear indication that the Opposition are totally dissatisfied with the Government's attitude towards the long-term unemployed and the problem of the trap between the short-term rates and the long-term rates.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes Noes 295.

Division No. 235]
AYES
9 pm


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Adams, Allen
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maxton, John


Allaun, Frank
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foster, Derek
Mikardo, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Foulkes, George
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Molyneaux, James


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freud, Clement
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
George, Bruce
Morton, George


Bldwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ginsburg, David
Newens, Stanley


Booth royd, Miss Betty
Golding, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Gourlay, Harry
Ogden, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael


Bray, Or Jeremy
Grant, John (Islington C)
O'Neill, Martin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Palmer, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter
Parker, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert


Campbell, Ian
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Pavitt, Laurie


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pendry, Tom


Canavan, Dennis
Haynes, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Cant, R. B.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Prescott, John


Cartwright, John
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Home Robertson, John
Race, Reg


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Homewood, William
Radice, Giles


Cohen, Stanley
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Coleman, Donald
Horam, John
Richardson, Jo


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cowans, Harry
Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Robertson, George


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Crowther, J. S.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Rooker, J. W.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowlands,Ted


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Ryman, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sever, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheerman, Barry


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Kerr, Russell
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kilfedder, James A.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dempssy, James
Lamble, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dewar, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Dixon, Donald
Lamond, James
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dobson, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Dormand, Jack
Leighton, Ronald
Soley, Clive


Douglas, Dick
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dubs, Alfred
Litherland, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dunlop, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W isles)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Stoddart, David


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stott, Roger


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strang, Gavin


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Straw, Jack


Eastham, Ken
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McKelvey, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Ennais, Rt Hon David
McNally, Thomas
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McNamara, Kevin
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Evans, John (Newton)
Magee, Bryan
Tilley, John


Ewing, Harry
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Sheitles'n)
Tinn, James


Field, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Torney, Tom


Fitch, Alan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Flannery, Martin
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Walnwright, Richard (Colne Valley)




Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Wigley, Dafydd
Woolmer, Kenneth


Watkins, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Wright, Sheila


We etch, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)



Welsh, Michael
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Winnick, David
Mr. Ted Graham.


Whitlock. William
Woodall, Alec



NOES


Adley, Robert
Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Aitken, Jonathan
Eyre, Reginald
Latham, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Falrbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Ancram, Michael
Falrgrieve, Russell
Lawson, Nigel


Arnold, Tom
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Le Marchant, Spencer


Aspinwall, Jack
Farr, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fell, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Banks, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bendall, Vivian
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, Richard


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lyell, Nicholas


Berry, Hon Anthony
Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Best, Keith
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Macfarlane, Neil


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Marcus
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Blackburn, John
Fry, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert


Blaker, Peter
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Madel, David


Body, Richard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Major, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Marland, Paul


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bowden, Andrew
Glyn, Dr Alan
Males, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray


Brinton, Tim
Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Brittan, Leon
Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Brotherton, Michael
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brown, Michael (Brigs &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch


Browne, John (Winchester)
Greenway, Harry
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger


Buck, Antony
Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector


Budgen, Nick
Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Bulmer, Esmond
Gummer, John Selwyn
Moore, John


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Morgan, Geraint


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Butler, Hon Adam
Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David


Carlisle. Kenneth (Lincoln)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hawkins, Paul
Myles, David


Chaiker, Mrs Lynda
Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Channon, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Needham, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John
Nelson, Anthony


Churchill, W. S.
Henderson, Barry
Neubert, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Tony


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hill, James
Onslow, Cranley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hooson, Tom
Osborn, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cope,John
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Corrie, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Costain, A.P.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parkinson, Cecil


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Parris, Matthew


Crouch, David
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pawsey, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby
Percival, Sir Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Dover, Denshore
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock, Alexander


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Porter, George


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Durant, Tony
Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom
Prior, Rt Hon James


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Proctor, K. Harvey


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Eggar, Timothy
Lamont, Norman
Raison, Timothy


Elliott, Sir William
Lang, Ian
Rathbone, Tim




Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Sproat, Iain
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Squire, Robin
Walker, BilI (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Renton, Tim
Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rhodes, James, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wall, Patrick


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stanley, John
Waller, Garry


Rifkind, Malcolm
Steen, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stevens, Martin
Ward, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Hugh
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Watson, John


Rost, Peter
Stokes, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Tapsell, Peter
Wheeler, John


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Wickenden, Keith


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Shersby, Michael
Thompson, Donald
Winterton, Nicholas


Silvester, Fred
Thome, Neil (Ilford South)
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Speed, Keith
Trippier, David



Speller, Tony
Trotter, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spence, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. John MacGregor and


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Mr. David Waddington


Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am now required to put the Questions on any amendments up to the end of Schedule 2 to be moved by a member of the Government. The amendments in question are Nos. 43, 46, 52 and 54. Does any hon. Member wish to divide the House on any of these amendments?

Amendments made:

No. 43, in page 48, line 5, leave out 'receiving' and insert—
'entitled or would if he satisfied prescribed conditions be entitled to'.

No. 46, in page 48, line 24, after 'subsection', insert—
', except a sum as to which it has been determined in accordance with regulations that it is not to be recovered in pursuance of this subsection,'.

No. 52, in page 54, line 18, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

No. 54, in page 63, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) Regulations of the following kinds, namely—

(a) regulations of which the effect is to increase an amount which is specified in regulations made in pursuance of section 3 of this Act or which, by virtue of regulations made in pursuance of paragraph (b) of section 4 (1) of this Act, is specified in a provision mentioned in that paragraph;
(b) regulations made in pursuance of section 32A (b) of this Act except regulations made for the purpose only of consolidating regulations which they revoke;
(c) regulations made in pursuance of paragraph 1 or 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act

except regulations made for the purpose only of consolidating regulations which they revoke,

shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House and, in the case of regulations falling within paragraph (a) or (c) of this subsection, shall not be made without the consent of the Treasury.'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. You will know of my connection with the all-party group for the homeless and rootless.
No doubt you have read about the recent tragedies that took place in hostels closely connected with the work of that group. I wished to make a Standing Order No. 9 application today about those tragic incidents. I was precluded from doing so because there was a possibility that the amendments on the Notice Paper in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends would give the Government an opportunity to make a policy statement about the tragic events which occurred in hostels and lodging houses had that amendment been reached. The procedural motion that has been enacted—through no fault of mine and through circumstances over which I have no control—prevented me from moving my amendment, which would have made the discussion possible.
Is there any other means by which I can return to the two amendments about the homeless and rootless and hostels and lodging houses before the guillotine falls tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have passed those amendments, and I am afraid that there is no way in which they can be revived.

Mr. Orme: I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), but I respect your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Clause 8

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTIONS 6 AND 7

Mr. Orme: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 13, line 6, at end insert
'and
(d) provision for treating normal requirements specified in the regulations as exceptional needs under section 3(1) of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 in parts of Great Britain so specified;'.
The Minister may wonder about the meaning of the amendment. If I could give it a sub-title, it would be "to prevent riots in Glasgow". I am sure that the Minister is aware that in parts of the country, especially in some parts of Scotland—not least in Glasgow—there is a strong tradition of payments of exceptional needs payments, especially for boots and clothing.
In principle, we do not support geographical differences. However, during a transitional period—and this is what the amendment is about—that difference is necessary, especially as the Government are not compensating for the reduction in ENPs by increasing the scale rates or introducing periodic lump sum payments, as recommended by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
The Government must take special cognisance of the position in certain parts of the country. There may be many such areas, but Glasgow comes immediately to mind. No doubt the Minister has visited some of the Glasgow offices and knows of the special problems that exist in that area.
It is worth reminding the Minister of the Supplementary Benefits Commission's response to the review report. It said:
While we support, in principle, the replacement of some—never all—exceptional needs payments by regular lump-sum grants, that change should not be introduced abruptly and universally. Practice varies enormously from one area to another. In some, claimants

have long relied so heavily on exceptional needs payments that an abrupt withdrawal of this help would cause severe hardship. In such places the transition should be brought about in stages, with careful attention being paid to the timing of each phase".

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Having made that quotation, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that that took account of the inclusion of lump sum grants. But under the legislation proposed lump sum grants will not be paid. Therefore, that quotation should be even stronger as a result of the way in which the Bill has developed.

Mr. Orme: Earlier I referred to the fact that lump sum payments would not be made. My hon. Friend will be aware chat we had long debates in Committee about the exceptional needs payments and the issue of discretion. Discretion is being removed here.
I put this point seriously to the Minister, despite my rather spectacular language about the prevention of riots in Glasgow. Nevertheless, there could be difficulties. Obviously we do not want to see problems arise and we want to help to prevent them. There is a very strong case for the Minister looking at the phasing here. We hope that the Minister will give us a firm date for implementation after the Bill has received Royal Assent. In Committee we talked about a date, but we were given no definite information.
I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to look at exceptional cases, recognising the difficulties about phasing. The Supplementary Benefits Commission made some strong remarks about this and the Government should take account of them. We tabled this amendment in order to elicit information from the Government. If the Minister is unable to give it this evening, perhaps she could let us know when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. No doubt she can answer some of the central points that we have put to her tonight.

Mrs Chalker: I agree with the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). He used rather colourful language in describing what he feared might be the effects of the changes in the payment of exceptional needs grants in certain parts of the country. He restricted his remarks to Glasgow, but there are other cities which have problems as well as Glasgow.


It is unfair to single out Glasgow even though Professor Donnison and other members of the Supplementary Benefits Commision have been exceptionally worried about that city.
There is no doubt that whenever we have had schemes that are so reliant on discretion—and we have had them since 1966 and even before that—variations have grown up between different areas. When we were in Standing Committee we were told how different it was in inner city areas from places such as Fort William.
In practice the variations that have grown up over the years have never been part of the policy of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, either implicit or explicit. It is precisely because of the variations in different parts of the country that we need to spell out individuals' entitlement. That is one of the things that we are doing in the regulations which will accompany this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, as I hope it will. When we discussed this in Committee we tried to spell out in the annex to notes on clauses, paragraphs 74 and 75, those circumstances in which claims for exceptional needs payments would be permissible. I believe that this will be to the great advantage of claimants and also of our staff in all offices particularly in the inner city areas. Where there are problems with exceptional needs payments which occasionally lead to arguments, at least the law will be clear, the facts will be written down, and the staff will not be accused of interpreting them too loosely or too widely. The facts will be there for all to see.
When the review team was preparing social assistance schemes it spent a great deal of time analysing the figures and visiting the sorts of areas described by the right hon. Member for Salford, West. Subsequently, as he will know—because he was then a Minister at the Department—the team attended a number of public meetings in those areas to discuss the proposals and to listen to the views of claimants and staff to make sure that their proposals were reasonable.
Some local offices make large numbers of exceptional needs payments, but neighbouring offices in adjoining territories do not make such payments. The ratio between offices in adjoining neighbourhoods can be as high as 7:1, even in areas such as Glasgow.
We are all aware of the local traditions that have grown up in Glasgow. They date back to the start of national assistance, and even long before that. The arrangements are the subject of consultation and discussion between the Department in Scotland and the social services group there. The review team had discussions with them, and we are continuing that consultation.
There will be no abrupt withdrawal of exceptional needs payments. The rules will provide for exceptional needs payments for non-scale rate items as of right. and such exceptional needs payments will be paid with less fuss in future and on a more uniform basis. We must seek to achieve that.
There will still be some exceptional needs payments for scale rate items. Any refusals will be subject to the right of appeal. Those cases will only arise where second and subsequent demands are made, and where special arrangements are needed and will apply.

Mr. Orme: I am following the hon. Lady's argument with interest. Is she saying in effect that there will be variations in areas if difficulties arise? Is she saying that there may be a differentiation between Glasgow and other parts of the country? She said that payments would be phased in, rather than being abrupt. Will that be the case for every part of the country?

Mrs. Chalker: The point that the right hon. Gentleman made earlier was valid. To make an abrupt change after years of tradition would be courting trouble. We do not intend to treat one part of the country more favourably than another. However, what has become long-established practice will be looked at closely. We shall ensure that there will be transitional arrangements.
We have made provision for extra staff to deal with these special arrangements, and the results will be monitored carefully. I have no reason to think that special arrangements and extra staff will not be able to cope with the problems that will emerge. They will not simply affect Glasgow. They will affect Merseyside, and possibly some parts of the North-East and London. We must take account of the varying practices that have grown up, while still pursuing our aim.


which in simplifying the supplementary benefits scheme must be to regulate those matters that can be defined, and to work out solutions to the difficult problems in the special areas.
We shall keep a close eye on what happens after November. Any Minister would be unwise to ignore the problem. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Salford, West for raising it. However, we cannot continue with an overall system of localised discretion for ever and a day. That would make a nonsense of what we are seeking to do and would have a confusing result for the staff, for the claimants and for everyone else involved. In addition, it would be grossly inequitable for claimants who did not live in the right area.
9.30 pm
Where truly exceptional circumstances arise which are specifically covered in regulations we have a residual discretionary power to meet them. I referred to that many times in Committee. However, the vast majority of cases must fall within the scope of the regulations.
The new arrangements for the supplementary benefit scheme could not take effect overnight everywhere. Therefore, we shall be phasing the new arrangements in gradually, not just for the areas that have been mentioned in the debate. The main benefit of the gradual implementation will probably be felt most in areas where there is the greatest difficulty. I am therefore seeking to meet the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to hear the Minister's assurances, but I wish to press her on one aspect. Where local offices have perhaps been generous, it is probable that some of the voluntary organisations, which in other areas meet certain needs, have not developed to the same extent. We have discussed in Committee on several occasions the problems of claimants who get shuffled from one person or one agency to another. In many areas where exceptional needs have not been met as generously by supplementary benefit, voluntary groups have accumulated stocks of clothing and household goods which are made available to people in need. I hope that in the phas-

ing out operation in those generous areas there will be good liaison with the voluntary organisations to make sure that they are encouraged to meet needs which will no longer be met by the local offices.
It would be unfortunate if someone went along to the WRVS, for example, seeking help, and was told that supplementary benefit was normally provided to deal with the problem without it being realised that the help had been phased out. I hope that it will be made clear that some of that help will no longer be available from the supplementary benefit office. I hope that the voluntary organisations will know what is happening and will be able to do more to fill the gaps that in some areas were previously filled by supplementary benefit.

Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House I shall reply to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). We are well aware of the excellent voluntary organisation liaison that exists in many areas. That is one of the factors to which I have always paid a lot of attention. We seek to encourage that laison.
The new arrangement will depend on the co-operation of the local authority social services departments and the voluntary organisations, particularly in difficult areas. I hope that that will in no way discourage the most valuable continuing and expanding role of many voluntary groups to seek to help the communities within their areas. Whatever the State does, a voluntary effort is made to help people who need assistance by way of explanations as well as goods. This is an invaluable binding aspect in our society and we should do everything we can to foster and encourage it.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North has made an excellent point, but he knows already that we shall have 400 specialist staff who will help with just this sort of problem. I do not wish to repeat what I said in Committee, but I can assure him that his point is carefully taken on board. I hope that the role of the voluntary groups will continue to be one of great assistance in addition to what the State may provide.

Mr. Orme: With the leave of the House, I speak again. I welcome what the Minister has said in recognising this problem in what is a difficult area. We shall


obviously want to see how the phasing in or phasing out takes place.

On the assurances that we have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 13, line 36, after 'give', insert
'(whether in pursuance of a reference under this Act or otherwise)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 63.

Mrs. Chalker: Our long debate on the Social Security Advisory Committee's duty is not limited to matters referred to that committee by the Government. We had always intended to ask that committee and the Northern Ireland Department to give advice on matters that affected them. In these amendments, therefore, we are seeking to fulfil an undertaking which I gave during the seventeenth sitting of the Standing Committee which was to consider whether something in the same spirit as Opposition amendment No. 324 should be put down by the Government.
These amendments are purely declaratory. Their substance is already implicit in the Bill. We are adding nothing to the committee's powers, but like the Opposition we acknowledge that declaratory provisions are sometimes very valuable. These two amendments will ensure that the advisory committee's duty to give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Department is not merely limited to matters referred to it by Government.

Mr. Freeson: Certainly we would not consider these amendments to be declaratory amendments. They are qualifying amendments which add some substance to Clause 9 as presently drafted, which gave rise to lengthy discussion in Committee. Whatever the assurance in the text of the debate may have been, so far as one could interpret the text of the Bill

there was an implied restraint on matters which would be referred to the advisory committee by the Secretary of State
in connection with the discharge of his functions under the relevant enactments".
I am quoting from the Bill.
To insert an explicit provision that that committee can give advice, whether in pursuance of a reference under this Act or otherwise, is a significant advance. I wish to suggest, in view of recent events, one or two matters that could be picked by the committee or which the Government could enable it to consider soon after it has been set up.
The hon. Lady and the Minister will recall that time and again in Committee—I think I made general reference to it on Second Reading—I argued for a wider approach to social policy, what has loosely become known as "joint approach to social policy", and said that a lead should be taken by Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security even where other Departments and Ministers were involved. It was this that caused me the greatest concern, although there were other issues that concerned hon. Members. That is what I wish to see acted upon quickly.
Among some of the examples that I gave in Committee of the need for crossing the borders between the DHSS and other Departments were important housing policy matters and hostel and housing association policy matters. It turned out later in Committee that they had considerable relevance to the full debate on what might be called the CHAR—Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless—amendments, two more of which it was hoped would be reached earlier in our proceedings this evening. I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) will have to say about the CHAR aspect, if he has the opportunity, in the context of the wider remit for the advisory committee.
The implication of Government amendments Nos. 62 and 63 is that, although its title may remain the same, the committee is becoming potentially a kind of social policy review committee. I suggested that a title along those lines should be adopted in place of the name in the Bill.
I want to refer to a matter that I believed should be urgently referred to the


committee under its broader remit, or that the committee should be enabled by the Department to consider. It arises from schedule 2, which speaks of the Secretary of State's powers to establish "resettlement units", as they will now be called, or to require local authorities—the categories of which are listed—to exercise the functions of the Secretary of State in this connection. At present the Secretary of State is directly responsible for the reception centres, as they are now called, run by the DHSS. There is a widening of the scope for the future. I do not wish to pursue that matter now, because I should probably be out of order.
With the wider remit resulting from the amendments, the Committee should have referred to it, or be enabled with the Department's full support to consider, the problems of the single rootless. It should be able to consider the problems that have arisen from the initiative in London undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and myself and then taken up by the Under-Secretary when we left office last May. That was intended to resolve the problems of the reception centres by getting people out of the DHSS sector and into the housing sector, having them rehoused by local authorities. Major problems have emerged. It is a ripe subject for the advisory committee to consider under its wider remit. What has happened over the years, and particularly in the past 12 months, which we discussed at some length in Committee, should be taken up by the advisory committee.
The advisory committee should deal with that matter against the wider background of the growing pressure of single people, particularly the poor and the rootless in the big cities. It is a major problem. It was largely that problem that gave rise to the horror of what happened in the hostel in my constituency earlier this week, in Salusbury Road, Kilburn, a horror that it is difficult to grasp even now.
I am not making any judgment on what happened. A major investigation is being carried out by the local authority, in consultation with the fire brigade. But there is no doubt that there was severe overcrowding in the hostel. It had in occupation about double the number of people that should have been provided

for. Whatever else may come out of the investigation, the reason why I want the advisory committee to consider the question under its wider remit is that there is great and growing pressure in certain parts of our cities on the single rootless, poverty-stricken people—the same sort of people as lived in that hostel.
Nine people died in the horror of that fire. Another incident has already been referred to. There was a near horror in East London only a day after the fire in Kilburn. The issue should be urgently considered. There should be an investigation. In addition the adequacy of adaptation of those multi-occupied buildings—formerly described as common lodging houses—should be examined. That examination should cross departmental boundaries. The Home Office, the Department of the Environment and the DHSS are all involved. Many of those buildings have inadequate provision for fire protection, and they lack basic human living conditions.
9.45 pm
Many other incidents could be quoted. I welcome the amendment. Perhaps the Social Security Advisory Committee will take up those incidents. Some of us are in touch with specialists about the horror that occurred in Kilburn. I am in touch with the chief fire officer in London and with my local authority of Brent. That authority is mounting a full investigation. I seek something wider. I seek an assurance from the Minister that it will be possible for the SSAC to consider such incidents. A full investigation is needed, not only into the basic facts of the Kilburn and East London horrors, but into the type of legislative change required. Such legislation might involve the need for better fire protection and better adaptation and management of accommodation for the single homeless and rootless. It is most important to make a factual investigation into the resource needs of specific inner city areas. Such areas give rise to the majority of problems affecting single homeless people. By "resource needs", I mean the resources required to meet the growing housing and welfare needs that now emerge. We need hostels. Work should be undertaken by housing associations, local authorities, and the DHSS. There should be financial support for local authorities, individuals, and housing associations. The Minister will


have power to delegate to local authorities, under the Bill when amended.
The Social Security Advisory Committee should use the powers proposed in the amendment to investigate what needs to be done. That investigation is urgently needed. The horrors of this week may occur elsewhere. The pressures that give rise to such horrors exist. No accommodation is available for those in need. Less accommodation will become available. The work of housing associations has been slashed by 50 per cent. this year. New buildings and conversions will be cut by 50 per cent. in 1980. In addition, local authority programmes have been cut by more than one-third. Housing associations will be unable to buy up or build the properties required. I am not discussing a national housing effort. Such problems must be debated elsewhere and at other times. I am dealing with an issue about which the Minister should be concerned.
Certain parts of our cities do not have sufficient resources, and what resources are available are being slashed sharply. Housing associations are having their programmes cut by 50 per cent. in one year. These are the organisations that would otherwise help meet the needs of single, rootless, homeless people.
The problem is urgent. The Government should base their policy on a factual investigation. I hope that the Government will enable the Social Security Advisory Committee to undertake an investigation as quickly as possible, against the background of the widening amendment which the Government moved and which we welcome.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) for giving us the opportunity for this debate. It is sad that it has taken the tragic events of the past few days to highlight the matter. I hope that the Minister will seriously reconsider the issue.
The amendment seeks to insert, after "give":
(whether in pursuance of a reference under this Act or otherwise)
regarding advice and assistance to the Secretary of State. Will the committee advise the Secretary of State on the problems referred to by my right hon. Friend?

If so, will that advice include setting a timetable for the closure of resettlement units, to be replaced by housing units—decent small hostels—and to include access to health and social care in the community for single homeless people?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into the detail of what should be done about the specific and sad incident. He should limit himself to the amendment.

Mr. Stallard: I have dealt with the tragic incidents which are coincidental to the debate.
I hope that the Minister's reply will be "Yes". I hope that a timetable will he set in line with our proposals in amendments No. 40 and 60, which we shall, unfortunately, not reach. If the Minister can assure me that such advice will be given to the Secretary of State, it will do much to allay our fears that the issue may go by default.

Mrs. Chalker: I am surprised that our innocuous amendment has given rise to a debate on previous amendments. Our good intentions are being used as a peg to debate wider issues. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment or his col leagues on housing matters. Neither would it be right for me to comment on the tragedies that occurred this week.
Following what the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said, I remind the House of what I said in Committee, as reported in columns 1345–1350. The Social Security Advisory Committee cannot be tied down to particular inquiries. We are seeking to make sure that it is known that it will not simply investigate matters referred to it by Government but also other relevant matters. We repeatedly said in Committee that it must be up to the advisory committee to decide what it should undertake in addition to its duty to look at regulations and remits from the Secretaries of State for Social Services and Northern Ireland.
Of course, it would be possible within certain limits, for the committee to undertake inquiries of the type suggested by the right hon. Member for Brent, East if it regarded that to be one of its priorities. However, on some of these issues that have been mentioned in the debate it may be that other bodies, perhaps


Committees of the House, would be more appropriate to look into such matters.
We want to make clear in the legislation that the advisory committee is not limited in the way that some Labour Members felt that it might be. Whatever the outcome of the necessary investigations into current tragedies and measures to prevent future tragedies, all of that must be a matter for the advisory committee. It is certainly not excluded, but it is a matter for another debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 63, in page 13, line 39, after 'give', insert:
'(whether in pursuance of a reference under this Act or otherwise)'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Clause 10

CONSULTATION WITH COMMITTEE ON PROPOSALS FOR REGULATIONS

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 16, line 25, leave out from 'Department' to end of line and insert 'makes'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we make take the following amendments: No. 65, in page 16, line 28, leave out 'Department shall lay' and insert:
'Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament'.
No. 66, in page 17, line 7, leave out from 'before' to 'together' in line 8 and insert 'each House of Parliament'.
No. 82, in schedule 3, page 72, leave out lines 19 to 24.
No. 83, in schedule 3, page 72, line 25, leave out
'not falling within paragraph 17 of this Schedule'.'

Mr. Powell: As you have noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, amendments No. 64, 65, and 66 hang together and, as the official Opposition perceived, they require the consequential amendments No. 82 and 83, which, considerately, the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and his hon. Friends have tabled.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity, without incurring your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to express the gratitude of my hon. Friends and myself for the manner in which the official Opposition

in Committee dealt with amendments that my hon. Friends and I had tabled on matters that we hoped would be discussed. We are grateful for the fact that that occurred, even though no member of the Ulster Unionist Party could, by reason of the composition of the Committee, take part in the debates.
I feel that the official Opposition—and I hope that this is true of the Government as well—support the intention behind the amendments. New clause 3, which was not moved yesterday because of the exigencies of time under the guillotine, would have achieved the same object as that at which the amendments aim and it is not for me to say that it would not have done so more neatly than do our amendments.
My hon. Friends and I are naturally not wedded to the form of words. One can rarely beat the parliamentary draftsman at his job and if the Government indicate that they regard the intention behind the amendments as reasonable and acceptable, there will be another stage for the Bill elsewhere and we should be happy to see our intention put in proper form at that stage.
We are not seeking to return to the matter on which we have often engaged the House, namely, the undesirability of the House proceeding, or continuing, to legislate in terms of constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland which do not now exist and which, according to the Government, it is not intended shall exist in future. That might have been, and indeed was, behind some of the earlier amendments that we tabled.
I ask the Minister to dismiss that consideration from her mind in considering the much narrower point that these amendments raise. The anomaly that they would remove is this. In Great Britain, when a report is made by the advisory committee to the Secretary of State on regulations that he proposes to make—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the New Hebrides Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brooke.]

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL

Bill (as amended in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Powell: —and has referred to the committee, that report, very properly, is laid before the House so that, when the House reads the regulations, it reads at the same time the report tendered to the Secretary of State on those regulations by the advisory committee.
As things stand, the anomaly is that, although the Bill—this is a matter of considerable gratification in Northern Ireland, as I noted on Second Reading—endows the advisory committee with the same advisory functions with regard to Northern Ireland legislation as in relation to Great Britain legislation, when Northern Ireland regulations are laid before the advisory committee and the advisory committee makes a report, that report will fall plop into the chasm of eternal night. It will not be seen by this House. It will not be presented to this House. It will not be brought to public notice in any way.
That happens because, as the Bill is drawn, it presumes the existence of what does not exist, namely, a Northern Ireland Assembly, before which the relevant regulations and the corresponding report of the advisory committee would be laid.

Mr. Orme: This is a central point; it was discussed in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman says that this amendment is on a narrower basis; but is it not a fact that the statute remains for the devolved Government who have been replaced temporarily by direct rule?

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention—so, obviously, is the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who was much cheered by it. With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman is not on the point that I am dealing with. In the earlier amendments which, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman, were discussed and explained in Committee, the proposal was to alter the structure of this clause. Having studied carefully what was said in Committee, my hon. Friends and I concluded that, given the legislation that was on the statute book, we had to use that terminology and that machinery of the

Department in order to get these regulations made. That is why a narrower and different point is being made now.
These amendments leave intact the machinery under the 1973 and 1974 Acts. They leave intact the function of the Department, although, under the 1974 Act, it is the Secretary of State who is temporarily responsible for the Department. The amendments do something that is narrower and different, to which I do not believe that any hon. Member could have any objection.
I accept that, if or when there is in Northern Ireland an elected assembly, it would be proper that it should be to that assembly that the regulations should be brought and the report made. But, in the interim, when there is no such assembly, it is unreasonable that the report of the advisory committee, to which we are giving duties in respect of Northern Ireland should be simply dropped out of sight and not laid before this assembly, the and not laid before this House, the only elected assembly responsible, as things are, for the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Perhaps the amendments are not the right way, but we ask the Government to ensure that in the interim period, unless and until there is a Northern Ireland assembly, the regulations and the reports of the advisory committee on them come to the attention of the House, as will the reports on the regulations referring to Great Britain. It is absurd that we should go to the trouble of making the same advisory committee responsible for oversight of Northern Ireland legislation as of Great Britain legislation and then say that when it issues a report on Northern Ireland legislation, for which no other body can take account, that report shall not be laid before the House.
This is a simple point. In no way does it prejudice either the present legislative position or the present constitutional position or any possible future constitutional position. If and when an assembly is set up, nothing would be easier than to alter this by a paragraph of a subsection of one of the schedules. Let the House have the report for Northern Ireland as well as for the rest of the United Kingdom, as long as the House remains the only elected assembly for Northern Ireland. I do not mind how the Government do it. They


cannot deny that the request is reasonable, and I am sure that they will accede to it.

Mr. Orme: I followed closely what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said. He was right to correct me. He is dealing with a narrower issue than that which was discussed in Committee. One way round the problem is for the Government to consider laying a report before the House at the same time as it is laid anywhere else and for it to be debatable if parliamentary time is available. The right hon. Member and his colleagues claim that under direct rule there is no full

Parliament scrutiny of Northern Ireland affairs. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to protect the rights of Northern Ireland Members.

Mr. Powell: One can imagine the House debating Great Britain regulations and a report on them when there is a corresponding and even more critical report relating to Northern Ireland to which Members cannot refer.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman has a fair point. The Government should take it on board.
I support the right hon. Gentleman's narrower argument, although we did not


support the wider aspect in the philosophical debate in Committee.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Reference has been made to amendments Nos. 82 and 83. It has been suggested that they are consequential to the main amendment. They may be consequential but they were tabled for a different purpose. I acccept that Northern Ireland regulations may never be debated, but there is another problem affecting regulations for the rest of Great Britain.
Schedule 3 contains a list of regulations which do not have to be put to the new advisory body for scrutiny. They are those which are made in the first six months. They deal with family income supplement, supplementary benefit, child benefit and various other benefits. Regulations on those issues will be excluded from reference to the advisory body.
I realise that such regulations may need to be referred before the new committee is established. That would be impossible. However, in earlier debates we agreed that in an emergency the regulations could be referred later. We would still get a report and thus discover whether there was criticism of the regulations, even if it was afterwards. It is important that that should happen with the first set of regulations.
It would have been better had we been given the opportunity to debate new clause 3. We could then have had a different form of scrutiny for the regulations the first time round. Unless the Government tell us that they propose some other form of scrutiny, it is essential for the first set of regulations to be referred, even after they have been made for report. There is a danger once provision is written into the first regulations that it will appear in successive regulations year after year without any justification. The first regulations are especially important.
I hope that the Under-Secretary is prepared to accept amendments Nos. 82 and 83 in their own right. That will ensure that the advisory committee has the chance to scrutinise all the regulations for Great Britain as well as ensuring that there is proper scrutiny by this House of regulations for Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Chalker: The aim of these amendments, as the right hon. Member

for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, is to overrule in one way the Northern Ireland Act 1974. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was making a narrower point, but I believe that it has a wider implication. Obviously I am concerned that anything we do in this House—and this is a matter of social security—is not misunderstood in any of the current discussions and does not pre-empt any other discussions. I wish to make sure that the form of words that we use in this Bill replicate similar words used in other current leislation.
The effect of amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66 would be to delete references to the Northern Ireland assembly and to make the Northern Ireland regulations subject to the same procedure at Westminster as their counterparts for the rest of Great Britain. Parliament accepted in 1974 that in the absence of devolved government in Northern Ireland it would, as a temporary measure, take on the more important responsibilities of the dissolved Northern Ireland assembly.
Because of the pressure of business, Parliament recognised the need to abbreviate certain procedures in some areas. However, it was accepted that the lack of any procedure would, though unsatisfactory, be tolerable for an interim period regardless of individual opinions about the satisfactory nature of these arrangements. I believe that it is not right to seek modifications of procedure in particular areas in this way.
I have an eye on the Government's present initiative in Northern Ireland. In no way would this House wish to prejudice those discussions. I am sad to say that acceptance of this amendment would be tantamount to Parliament declaring that responsibility for social security—traditionally a devolved subject—would henceforth be exercised by Westminster and not by any future Northern Ireland assembly. It is clearly not the right time to be making that sort of signal, and I am concerned that it might be taken amiss by the parties in Northern Ireland.
We have in this House procedures which I believe should be preserved so that these regulations, along with other regulations which affect Northern Ireland, might be drafted and discussed in the same way. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, whose case I understand—I should hate him to think otherwise—that


at present any move such as the one he seeks to persuade us to make in these amendments could make the present very serious discussions all the more difficult.

Mr. Orme: I am following the hon. Lady's argument with interest. The Opposition might disagree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about what will happen or is happening now, but we do not want anything to be done that will prejudice the present situation. We stand by the 1974 Act. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was responsible for putting that Act through the House. I suggest that, without accepting the amendments, the hon. Lady could take on board the strong point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South—a point that I have tried to underline—that, in duplicate in a sense, regulations or submissions could still be made to the House without in any way prejudicing the Act as it is.

Mrs. Chalker: I am no expert on Northern Ireland matters. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is present, for his advice. I understand that the procedures that we use now regarding regulations as they affect Northern Ireland would be applied in the same way to regulations on social security matters. If we were to take the step suggested by the right hon. Member for Down, South, we should be extending the role in a way that is likely to be misunderstood at this delicate time in the negotiations.
One of the difficulties is that we do not often discuss some of these matters at a reasonable hour. Whilst I have not been privy to some of these discussions—I accept the point made by the right hon. Gentleman—I think that it would be in the interests of all concerned not to make an exception of social security regulations, which is what we would be doing, in comparison with other regulations which are made in the interest of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) spoke to amendment No. 83. The new Social Security Advisory Committee is an integral part of the new structure beginning in November. It

will take over from the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the National Insurance Advisory Committee at that point. In practice, therefore, paragraph 17, which is the subject of the amendment, can be effective for only a very short time—for the very end of the six months following Royal Assent. That would be at a time when the new committee would be finding its feet. The new committee will be taking stock of its new, wide and onerous duties. I believe that it is important not to burden the committee with proposals for regulations in the first few days of its life. Furthermore, we have had a long standing practice to exclude reference to regulations made within six months of the passing of social security Bills on the grounds of urgency.
Taking the supplementary benefit scheme as an example, it is our intention that the revised scheme should come into operation at the same time as the November uprating. That will mean that 3 million weekly benefit payments will need to be recalculated to give effect to the detailed changes, most of which are prescribed in regulations. It is therefore essential that the main regulations be made as soon as possible after Royal Assent. These will be subject to affirmative resolution and, therefore, to debate in both Houses. Other regulations— for example, those governing the award of exceptional needs payments—will follow as soon as possible thereafter. But it is necessary for these regulations to be made quickly, because of the need to print the necessary leaflets and to train and equip local officers to operate the new rules. All that has to be completed in time for the revised scheme to become fully operational from November. There will clearly be no time, in the first short period of the Committee's life, for these urgent regulations to be dealt with.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In Committee we put in clause 10(2)(a), which provided that, if there were any urgency, the Minister did not have to refer the regulations to the advisory committee before they were made, but merely that they would be referred afterwards for observations.
The Minister has argued clearly that in the first six months the regulations have to be available so that people can


get on with them. I was arguing that, when the committee is set up, one of its tasks —not one that it has to rush into—will he to go through the regulations and to report on them, even after they have come into operation. There is a danger that the first set of regulations will form the framework for a very long time.
If, after the regulations have come into operation, the report states that some part is wrong, we shall have more chance of putting it right than if we have to wait until that part is referred at some future stage. It is important that we have a report, even if it is after the event.

Mrs. Chalker: To do as the hon. Gentleman suggests would put an unreasonable burden on the Social Security Advisory Committee. The regulations will come before the House for affirmative resolution. In amendments already made to the Bill we have asked for the consideration of a large number of regulations after they have been made. The extension of that to these regulations—falling within paragraph 17 of the schedule—is something with which the Committee, in the first few months of its existence, would not be able to cope.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not reasonable to ask it at this time. I hope that he will allow me to take the matter away for futher consideration. He mentioned it in passing in Committee, and has put it more forcefully tonight. I do not think that the matter can be dealt with in the way that he suggests, but I shall consider it again.

Mr. Bennett: The Minister said that we shall have the opportunity to debate the regulations on an affirmative resolution. That would give us a guaranteed one and a half hours for debate. Does the hon. Lady think that the House could scrutinise those regulations in one and a half hours more effectively than an advisory committee could do under referral? It would be of some help if she could guarantee more time for a debate on the regulations. One and a half hours would not be satisfactory.

Mrs. Chalker: That matter is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. When the regulations come before the House, they will have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. There is a variety

of ways in which all these matters are considered. I do not think that any of the regulations will lack investigation by one committee or another. If the onus of the debates that we have had on this issue in Committee and on the Floor of the House is anything to go by, we shall have so many people considering the regulations that we shall be in danger of going in the wrong direction.
I do not wish to be difficult. I wish to take a sensible—

Mr. Orme: I am sorry to press the hon. Lady once more, but I am advised that the regulations are laid in Parliament and referred to the Northern Ireland Committee. If so, they are discussed. Does not that cut across the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? I asked whether the regulations could be laid in the House, but the hon. Lady said that they could not be.

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office wishes to add a few expert words on this issue. I am seeking to ensure that we use the same procedures for these regulations as we use for other regulations affecting Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): Perhaps I can assist the House on this technical, constitutional problem.
Other than where the House decides by primary legislation—by means of a Bill—that it shall apply to Northern Ireland, primary legislation otherwise applies to Northern Ireland by way of Order in Council. Subordinate legislation is downgraded one step. If it applies to Britain, it is a matter for affirmative resolution in this House. In Northern Ireland the same regulation is dealt with by negative resolution. A negative resolution is not discussed at all in this House. That is probably the right hon. Member's problem.
That is how the 1974 Act has defined the situation. We would wish to depart from that position as soon as normal circumstances prevail in Northern Ireland. But, as the House is aware, at present we are engaged in sensitive and delicate discussions in the hope of achieving normality in the Province.
I urge the House to do nothing in this Bill to change what has been so far the


recognised way of dealing with these matters, because such things can be readily misinterpreted across the water. The last thing that I would want to do is to create a situation in which an Act of this House, in all innocence, creates difficulties for us in Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In moving these amendments, I referred to the fact that there is another stage for the Bill. Perhaps I may spend a few seconds to take up the gravamen of the Minister's point.
In addition to the points that I have already accepted, I accept that it would be awkward for regulations which, in all other contexts, would not be laid before the House under the 1974 Act to be laid before the House in this case only. The only reason for introducing that provision into these amendments was as a trigger mechanism, as it were, to try to get the report before the House. If the Government can manage to get the report before the House by one way or another, they will not be breaching any precedents or systems laid down in the 1974 Act because these reports are unique. There is no similar report from such a body as this about regulations.
My object is simply to ensure that the Government have an opportunity to consider in the narrowest and most specific possible form the points at issue before the next stage of this Bill. That is why I took the time of the House to make that additional remark.

Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I will look at what he has just said and I will write to him. I accept the logic of his case, but I am not in a position at present to give him the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Powell: In the light of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3

SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Amendment proposed: No. 67, in page 69, line 18, leave out '8 nor more than'.—[Mr. Orme.]

Miss Richardson: The purpose of this amendment is to make the membership of the Social Security Advisory Committee 11. We have had many debates on the general composition of the SSAC and its workings. I remind those hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee and who may not have studied the Bill in as great a detail as others of us that the new committee will replace two existing bodies—the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which will go out of operation in November, and the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which will be wound up at about the same time.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: And the Northern Ireland body.

Miss Richardson: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me that the Northern Ireland body is included as well.
The SSAC will have a wide function. It is reasonable to urge that its membership should be increased from eight, as provided in the Bill, to 11. The committee will be considering the various detailed workings of the social security system, and eight is a small membership when we consider the duties that it will have to undertake. I contend that a membership of 11 would be more appropriate.
10.30 pm
If the membership is increased to 11, I hope that the Minister of State will emphasise the semi-assurance that he gave in Committee that he is considering appointing some women members to the new committee. If the membership is increased, it may encourage the right hon. Gentleman to consider appointing women. As I reminded him in Committee, women are not a minority group in Britain. Many women receive supplementary benefit, or are claimants of other benefits and pensions. Women represent nearly 52 per cent. of the population. Surely we are entitled to some direct representation on the committee.
I failed in my efforts in Committee to ensure that three of the eight members


of the committee are women. I am not pressing that argument now. Indeed, I could not do so. I merely say that if the Minister accepts the amendment, which would increase the membership from eight to 11, that should give him added encouragement to consider appointing at least three women.
The committee will replace three bodies, and even a membership of 11 would be quite small, however, high-powered, expert and learned the members may be. Incidentally, I hope that some of them will have some grass roots experience and will not adopt only an academic or research point of view. I hope that some of the members will consider with heart and feeling the difficulties which face pensioners and the various claimants we have been discussing in our deliberations.
The additional membership would add only little to the cost, which we have heard so much about during the 130 hours that we have been discussing the Bill. It seems a small matter on which to secure the Government's agreement. I am not asking for too large a committee, bearing in mind the size of the problem that it will be considering.

Mr. Orme: I wanted my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) to introduce the amendment as she spoke so eloquently on this issue in Committee. She spoke of the right of women to be represented and the need for members to be appointed who have had experience of claimants and who know what the system is about.
It is important to stress that the committee will be replacing two bodies—the National Insurance Advisory Committee and the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Those bodies deal with different areas of benefit, and the committee members will have to divide themselves into specialist groups to deal with the national insurance and supplementary benefit aspects.
If the eight are not to be full-time members, what will be the role of the Chairman? We have been given no guarantee that he will be full time or nearly full time. We still do not know how the committee members will operate. No doubt they will be part-time members, as members of the SBC are at the moment. However, their work on both sides of

the entire social security system will amount to a massive operation. I have seen the SBC in operation under the chairmanship of Professor Donnison. No doubt present Ministers, like me, have sat in on a full-day session of the commission. In that way one becomes aware of the amount of work that it has to do and the detail into which it must go.
The Government are altering the basis and main functions of the SBC. That is why some of us are so concerned about the changes that are taking place. Perhaps exclude from that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who goes around with a chopper in his hand at times. He appeared to welcome the changes. However, I am sure that even he would want to emphasise that the new committee must have not only teeth but the right type of members. They must have experience and ability. That is why we propose a membership of 11 as opposed to eight. That is the minimum size that can be contemplated, and that is why we are pressing the amendment.

Mr. Field: I should like to say a few words in support of amendment No. 67, not just because my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) politely suggested that I should perhaps say something as one who voted for the abolition of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Even at this late hour in the proceedings on the Bill, I do not repent doing that. I took the right decision. However, I ask the Government to consider seriously the idea in the amendment to increase the number of members to at least 11. I say that partly for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). One of the difficulties that I experienced in Committee in speaking after my hon. Friend was that she covered an amendment in such a comprehensive way that it was always difficult to say something different. I therefore underline the points she made, but perhaps present the arguments in a slightly different way.
The proposed committee may be only advisory, but it will oversee to some extent the expenditure of £18 billion of public money. Whereas some of us would like this Chamber to have a tighter grip on public expenditure, and perhaps hope that our new Select Committees will


provide some improvement, we all have something to gain if the new body can work well. Therefore, I commend to the Minister, not for any Socialist reason that the size of the quango should be increased, but for the good old reason that Burke advanced, that even "the humblest he" has something of importance to add to the conversation. If there are 11 humble he's or she's, the deliberations will be better.
We wish the committee well in its task. It will be following the SBC and the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Over recent years the commission has done an immensely important job, beginning the task of acting as a watchdog on the poor. How much better that work will be continued if the committee can not only represent a fair balance as between men and women and as between the different regions of the country, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, the consumers of the service. We have emphasised today, yesterday and in Committee that we get few concessions from the Government. Will the Minister drop a few crumbs from his table tonight and accept this amendment?

Mr. Prentice: I find the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) persuasive, as always—and all the more so when he quotes Burke.
The essence of our proposal is that there should be an element of flexibility—if I may use the word "flexibility". It has been an overworked word in our debates on the Bill, and I have done my share of overworking it.
We are not necessarily proposing a figure of eight. We are proposing that we should have the power to create a committee of not fewer than eight and not more than 11 members. That pattern has been followed in the appointment of similar committees in this area. The National Insurance Advisory Committee can have between six and 10 members, in addition to the chairman. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Committee can have any number of members, provided that there are equal numbers of employer and employee representatives. The Supplementary Benefits Commission can have not more than six members, in addition to the chairman and deputy chairman. The Occupational Pensions Board can

have between eight and 12 members, in addition to the chairman and deputy chairman. In those cases there has been a bracket within which the final total could be decided.
There are a number of balances to be considered. We want a body small enough to be effective as a forum for fairly intimate discussion, but we want it to be large enough to reflect a number of different kinds of experience. As the House will know, we are committed to the appointment of one member who is representative of employers' interests and one member who is representative of employees' interests. We are committed to including a member with a knowledge of Northern Ireland, because the committee will be taking over the functions of the Northern Ireland Supplementary Benefits Commission. We are committed to including a person with special knowledge and experience of the disabled.
There are other balances to be struck. The hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) reminded the House of the discussions in Committee. I told her then that we were considering names that included those of some women. She asked whether we were also considering the names of some men. I answered that question in the affirmative. I expect there to be men and women on the committee.
To achieve that kind of balance, and at the same time not to be too rigid, it is sensible that the statute should lay down a span of numbers. It might be found by the committee, or by the Secretary of State looking at the working of the committee, that some form of knowledge was missing and that it would be advisable to make an additional appointment. I suggest that the Bill, as formulated, provides the best way of meeting those requirements.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 69, line 19 at end insert—
'1A. The chairman of the Committee shall normally devote not less than 17 days in each month to the work of the Committee.'.
Of all the Opposition amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is probably one of the clumsiest. I should have preferred you to select amendment No. 68.
The Opposition's difficulty is that we pressed hard in Committee that the chairman of the advisory committee should be full time, or at least should work for fourth-fifths of the week. Having pressed amendments to that effect very hard, and having received no assurances from the Government, we felt that we should return to the matter on Report. In order to do so, we have had to table a rather clumsy amendment. It would have been better if we had provided for 17 working days in each month. But the amendment is a vehicle to press the Government for assurances on how much time the new chairman will give to his duties.
Two bodies are in a sense being merged—the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which meets occasionally, and the job of whose chairman is very much pant time, and the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Although the SBC's chairman has recently supposedly been putting in four-fifths of a week, most people believe that his four-fifths have been at least as good as most people's full week. Therefore, in effect, the SBC has had a full-time chairman.
In logic, as the Government are putting two bodies together, the chairman should have a working week which is the aggregate of those of the present chairmen. The Opposition's fear is that he might work for only the average of the two, or that possibly the new body will be much more like the National Insurance Advisory Committee than the SBC. Therefore, we again press the Government for assurances that they really are looking for a chairman who will work full time, or so close to it that the difference is not noticeable, and that they are not looking for a chairman who will put in less than half a week or fewer than 17 days in a month.
By this stage the Government must be close to drawing up their short list of names, if they do not have a final name for the chairman. I hope that the Minister will assure us that those on the short list, or the final choice, will in effect be full time or so close to it that people will not notice. Unless that is so, most of U3 will think that the committtee will be very much an advisory body with no teeth, and that all the claimants will be badly let down over the years.

Mr. Prentice: I repeat what I said several times in Committee, that we are estab

lishing an advisory committee. That must be emphasised. But in so far as the committee takes over the duties of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, it takes over its advisory role and not its executive role. However, it is certainly the Government's view that the committee should be a body of considerable influence. In order that that may be so, we should expect a substantial commitment of time by the chairman.
The intention of the amendment is similar to that of amendments moved in Committee, which is to define in the Bill the precise amount of time given by the chairman. That is not wise. It is not necessary, and it could be restrictive in a way that would be very unhelpful.
Everyone who has studied these matters has respect for the distinguished work of Professor Donnison as chairman of the SBC in recent years. A number of tributes have been paid to him, and I am sure that a number will be paid to him between now and his retirement from that post. When he was appointed by Mrs. Castle, it was on the basis of working four days a week. He preferred—and she agreed—that he should have time available for other activities. He considered that he could do a more effective job by reason of that. Nothing was laid down in the legislation under which he was appointed that constricted that agreement.
All that I am suggesting is that the same degree of freedom should now exist. I repeat that when we make a new appointment we shall require a substantial commitment of time from the new chairman. However, it would be unreasonable to write too precise a definition into the statute. Indeed, it might be harmful to do so.
The amount of time taken will be affected by three factors. I mentioned those factors in Committee, but perhaps they are worth repeating. First, the amount of time needed in practice will depend on the way in which the committee's work develops. Secondly, the amount of time given by the chairman will depend on who is approached, his problems and availability. The amount of time given will depend upon what he considers reasonable, provided that he meets the criterion of a substantial amount of time. Thirdly, different individuals work at different paces. As has been said, the present chairman achieves a good full week's work


in four days. That is true of some individuals, but not of others.
I ask the House for flexibility. I repeat the assurance that we shall seek a chairman and members who are committed to giving enough time to do the job that we would expect.

Mr. Orme: I have listened to the Minister's remarks. He has been more positive than that when he was in Committee. However, he has not met our point. We sought a full-time chairman. We would have been satisfied if the Minister had been prepared to use the criteria that apply to the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. He is not prepared to do that. We spoke of a full-time chairman, or one who would sit four days a week. The new advisory committee covers national insurance and supplementary benefits. The chairmanship will involve a major task. The committee will oversee millions of claimants and have a budget of about £18 billion. The committee will not be responsible for the budget. That is a matter for Parliament and the Government.
We are disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to meet us on this point. We shall await the appointment of the chairman, and the terms of that appointment, before judging whether the Government intend to give the committee the correct leadership.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 13

TENURE OF OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in page 19, line 7, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 71, in clause 15, page 22, line 20, at end add—
'(4) The day appointed for the coming into force of subsection (1) of this section shall not be earlier than 1st January 1983.'.

Mr. Bennett: The amendments cover two points that caused us concern in Committee. The present role of the National Insurance Commissioner is being extended- He will be responsible not

only for national insurance appeals, but also for those relating to social security. We are all aware that the commissioner takes a very long time to hear existing appeals. That is unsatisfactory. However, if he were to take an equally long time to process appeals on supplementary benefit, it would be even more unsatisfactory.
We therefore suggest that "may" should be changed to "shall". We wish to prompt the Lord Chancellor. We wish to ensure that sufficient people are appointed to clear the backlog. We must ensure that appeals are heard promptly. Amendment No. 70 makes a small, but important, point. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Government are determined to clear the backlog. Appeals cause great anxiety and hardship.
Amendment No. 71 was tabled because we are concerned that the right of appeal is being taken away. People who are dissatisfied with the response from the local appeal tribunal will have the right of appeal only in limited circumstances, which can only be justified once case law has been established and people know their rights under the new regulations.
Our amendment suggests that the limiting of right of appeal should not come into operation until 1983. In the interim people should retain the right of appeal if they are dissatisfied with local decisions. They should not have to ask permission from the chairman or be entitled to that right only if it is a split decision.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that people will be encouraged to appeal, particularly in the interim period, until case law is established.

Mr. Prentice: I ask the House to reject amendment No. 70, for two reasons. First, it is misconceived. The subsection applies only when the Lord Chancellor considers that he should appoint a deputy commissioner for such period or occasion as he thinks fit. It would therefore be meaningless to add the word "shall". The Lord Chancellor will make the appointment if he thinks it necessary, subject to the availability of suitable appointees.
Secondly, the language follows that of the Courts Act 1971, which provides that the Lord Chancellor may appoint deputy


high High Court judges and deputy circuit judges. A deputy commissioner would have the same status as a deputy judge and the same conditions of appointment would apply.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Disregarding the wording, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a problem over the time taken to deal with appeals?

Mr. Prentice: That is the major reason for rejecting amendment No. 71. We are concerned about the time taken to decide appeals to the National Insurance Commissioner and the backlog of cases built up over a number of years. It is therefore urgent to clear, I shall not say frivolous appeals but appeals where the grounds are so slender that there is little chance of success.
The position is safeguarded if the tribunal is divided on its decision. Even if it is unanimous, there will be the right to app[y for leave to appeal to the commission. The automatic right of appeal to the commissioner is what is being amended, and the change should take effect from November. It will contribute towards quicker decisions on the large number of outstanding appeals.

Mr. Bennett: The Government have once again not given us the assurances that we seek. They are trying to cut down the number of appeals rather than have them heard quickly.
At this time of night it is perhaps preferable to withdraw the amendment and hope that in another place concern will be shown for appeals to be held quickly and for people not to be stopped making genuine appeals. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21

SUPPLEMENTAL

Amendment made: No. 72, in page 25, line 34, leave out 'paragraph 14' and insert 'paragraphs 10 and 14'.—Mrs. Chalker.]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 253.

Division No. 236]
AYES
[11 pm


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond
Farr, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Burden, F. A.
Fell, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ancram, Mlchael
Butler, Hon Adam
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Carlisle, Kennete (Lincoln)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Banks, Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Forman, Nigel


Bell, Sir Ronald
Channon, Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney
Fox, Marcus


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Churchill, W. S.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Best, Keith
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fry, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Blffen, Rt Hon John
Clegg, Sir Walter
Gardiner, George (Relgate)


Biggs-Davison, John
Colvln, Michael
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Blackburn, John
Cope, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blaker, Peter
Corrie, John
Gllmour, Rt Hon Sir lan


Body, Richard
Costsin, A.P.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Crouch, David
Goodhart, Philip


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Goodhew, Victor


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Dickens, Geoffrey
Goodlad, Alastalr


Bowden, Andrew
Dorrell, Stephen
Gorst, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gow, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dover, Denshore
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brinton, Tim
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Gray, Hamish


Brittan, Leon
Durant, Tony
Greenway, Harry


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dykes, Hugh
Grieve, Percy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Brotherton, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Eggar, Timothy
Grist, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Elliott, Sir William
Grylls, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Emery, Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Buck, Antony
Fairgrleve, Russell
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nick
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Haselhurst, Alan




 Hastings, Stephen
Mellor, David
Shersby, Michael


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Silvester, Fred


Hawkins, Paul
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Iain (Merlden)
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Speed, Keith


Meddle, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speller, Tony


Henderson, Barry
Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Monro, Hector
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hlggins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Hill, James
Moore, John
Sproat, Iain


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Morgan, Geraint
Squire, Robin


Hooson, Tom
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Stainton, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stanley, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Mudd, David
Steen, Anthony


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Murphy, Christopher
Stevens, Martin


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Myles, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchln)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Needham, Richard
Stokes, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Nelson, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Jessel, Toby
Neubert, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Newton, Tony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Nott, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Norman


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Onslow, Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Kimball, Marcus
Osborn, John
Thompson, Donald


King, Rt Hon Tom
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Thornton, Malcolm


Knox, David
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lamont, Norman
Parkinson, Cecil
Trippier, David


Lang, Ian
Parris, Matthew
Trotter, Neville


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Latham, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lawrence, Ivan
Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Lawson, Nigel
Percival, Sir lan
Waddington, David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Pink, R. Bonner
Wakeham, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pollock, Alexander
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Porter, George
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wall, Patrick


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Waller, Garry


Loveridge, John
Prior, Rt Hon James
Walters, Dennis


Luce, Richard
Proctor, K. Harvey
Ward, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Warren, Kenneth


McCrlndle, Robert
Rathbone, Tim
Watson, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


MacGregor, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Renton, Tim
Wheeler, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rhodes, James, Robert
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


McQuarrie, Albert
Ritklnd, Malcolm
Wickenden, Keith


Madsl, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Major, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wilkinson, John


Marland, Paul
Rossi, Hugh
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Marlow, Tony
Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Mates, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mather, Carol
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Younger, Rt Hon George


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Scott, Nicholas



Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Mayhew, Patrick
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)



NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Crowther, J. S.


Adams, Allen
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Cryer, Bob


Allaun, Frank
Buchan, Norman
Cunlitfe, Lawrence


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cunningham, George (Islington S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ian
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dalyell, Tam


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Canavan, Dennis
Davidson, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Ilor (Gower)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cartwright, John
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Deakins, Eric


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dempsey, James


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cohen, Stanley
Dewar, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald
Dixon, Donald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Dobson, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Conlan, Bernard
Dormand, Jack


Bradley, Tom
Cowans, Harry
Douglas, Dick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Dubs, Alfred







 Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Jo


Dunlop, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Dunnett, Jack
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Eadle, Alex
Lamble, David
Robertson, George


Eastham, Ken
Lamborn, Harry
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


English, Michael
Leighlon, Ronald
Rowlands,Ted


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ryman, John


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Sandelson, Neville


Evans, John (Newton)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sever, John


Ewing), Harry
Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Field, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Fitch., Alan
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Fitt, Gerard
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Short, Mrs Renee


Flannery, Martin
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Sllkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Sllkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silverman, Jullus


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Foster, Derek
McKay, Allen (Penlstone)
Snape, Peter


Foulkes, George
McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Freud, Clement
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Stallard, A. W.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McNally, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon David


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McNamara, Kevin
Stoddart, David


George, Bruce
Magee, Bryan
Stott, Roger


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shelties'n)
Strang, Gavin


Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Straw, Jack


Goldlng, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Summerskll, Hon Dr Shirley


Gourlay, Harry
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Graham, Ted
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maxton, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mikardo, Ian
Tilley, John


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Torney, Tom


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Haynes, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Weetch, Ken


Healer, Rt Hon Denis
Morton, George
Wellbeloved, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Welsh, Michael


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Newens, Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Home Robertson, John
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Homewood, William
O'Halloran, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Hooley, Frank
O'Neill, Martin
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Horam, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Howells, Geralnt
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Huckfleld, Les
Parker, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hudson Davies, Gwllym Ednyfed
Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Pendry, Tom
Woolmer, Kenneth


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Penhallgon, David
Wright, Sheila


Janner, Hon Greville
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Prescott, John



John, Brynmor
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Race, Reg
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles
Mr. James Tinn.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

NEW HEBRIDES BILL [LORDS]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

PENDING APPEALS TO PRIVY COUNCIL

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Christopher Price: The main debate on this Bill will no doubt take place on Third Reading and a number of us will have something to say then.
Clause 3 enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to make provision regarding any appeals from the New Hebrides courts which may be pending before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at independence. I do not know whether there are any appeals pending and I shall shortly ask the Minister about that.
The role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in relation to the New Hebrides in the few weeks before independence is one which I would not have raised had it not been for the constitutional discussions which have taken place in the last two or three days.
As these serious discussions seem to have opened up the issue of the basis for the New Hebrides constitution since the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), attended the constitutional conference, I believe that clause 3 is an appropriate clause on which to probe the Minister about the present situation before we reach Third Reading.
It appears that the constitutional conference, which everybody thought had finalised matters in September and at which the hon. Member negotiated with great distinction, has been re-opened. If the settlement has not been properly defended by the Government, I think that that might give rise to litigation even in the short time before independence. That would be properly a matter for clause 3. I realise that it is a narrow point but I

believe that it is right, during this short Committee stage, to attempt to get an answer from the Minister on whether, in his view, the constitutional conference still stands.
The basis for that constitutional conference was that the New Hebrides would become a unitary State but that there should be regional autonomy for certain of the islands within the group. That was agreed after massive concessions by the Vanuaaku Pati in order to create an atmosphere that would encourage agreement at the conference and pave the way for elections.
Everybody knows that the elections took place in an orderly fashion and that the Vanuaaku Pati won a clear majority. The British Government are rather good at supervising the holding of elections in an orderly fashion these days.
If it should appear now that the French Government are saying that any aid at all should be conditional on the reopening of those constitutional negotiations to include the whole issue of confederation—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot so far relate what he has been saying to appeals to the Privy Council dealt with in clause 3.

Mr. Price: I have indeed been remiss in failing to relate my remarks to the clause, and I shall do so immediately, Mr. Godman Irvine.
If this reversal of the constitutional conference should give rise to litigation, it might go quickly to the Privy Council and simultaneously to the Conseil d'Etat in Paris. For appeals beyond the New Hebrides courts, of which you know so well, Mr. Godman Irvine, the constitution says that there is to be a British judge and a French judge and an independent chairman to be appointed by the King of Spain. Of course, for a long period there was no King of Spain and there was a problem in the New Hebrides. As a result, the British and French judges in the Supreme Court in the New Hebrides decided to form themselves into an entity for the purpose of hearing appeals and to do without the chairman to be appointed by the King of Spain.
If it should happen that, out of this appeals mechanism, a constitutional appeal should flow to the Privy Council,


that is a proper matter to raise in Committee, and I raise that matter now. I agree that I do so on a somewhat narrow drawbridge in Committee, but when the Government choose to introduce Third Reading of a Bill in the middle of constitutional negotiations which took place for the past three days in Paris and are to take place for the next three days in London, it is incumbent upon them to tell us how they intend to prevent clause 3 from being invoked and to give some assurances of the utter finality of the constitutional conference that took place in September.
As we are in Committee and there is no inhibition on speaking a second time, I hold my remarks at this point and await the Minister's response, although I think that others may wish to speak.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I would tread part way along the same drawbridge that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) either raised or lowered—I am not certain which it was.
The general impression on Second Reading was that this was an almost totally agreed measure between ourselves and the French and all those concerned in the New Hebrides. The Under-Secretary of State rightly pointed out:
but it is clear that progress in negotiations within the territory could be promoted by some outside stimulus".—[Official Report, 6 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 680.]

Mr. Percy Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. With respect, and following your intervention a few minutes ago, what has been said by the hon. Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has not the slightest thing to do with appeals to the Privy Council. The clause is concerned with appeals which are pending. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West was dealing with the possibility of proceedings which might start. Such appeals cannot be pending. Therefore, this cannot be in order.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. God-man Irvine. I should point out that this is an exceedingly important and delicate time in the negotiations. There is clear evidence that in some parts of the New Hebrides there is likely to be a breakdown of law and order which may lead to

appeals to our legal system. It is not a subject that can be lightly passed over late at night because that happens to suit those who want the subject to pass without discussion.

The First Deputy Chairman: This deals with pending appeals, not with new appeals.

Mr. Ogden: I am sorry that—

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The wording refers to appeals which are pending at independence, not appeals that are pending today. We do not know what litigation may arise in the New Hebrides as a result of what will happen between now and a date for independence, which it has been suggested for some time will be during May but has not yet been fixed and could well be postponed. I am sorry that I interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), but appeals pending at independence are hypothetical appeals, and it is proper to raise the subject in the debate.

Mr. Ogden: I was teetering on the edge of the drawbridge, but withdrew very quickly. I have not mentioned appeals. I am sorry that the hon and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) disagrees with me more tonight than he did on Monday. We are not trying to create any tremors on the water. We are asking for information.
The Bill received an agreed Second Reading because it was brought to us as an agreed measure. The provisions, including clause 3, are hardly likely to be used. The Minister said that everything had not been tidied up, and to that end the New Hebrides leaders had been invited to discussions in London later this month. It was felt that that would help to continue the broad measure of agreement.
This may be a good opportunity for the Minister to give us more information. If that agreed settlement is not to happen, with the possibility of present appeals continuing, and further appeals to the Judicial Committee increasing, we are asking the Minister, if he so wishes, to provide us with more information. It is better to ask for that now than on,


Third Reading, when we must agree to all the provisions or none of them.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker): If I am in order in doing so, I shall gladly respond to the questions raised.
In answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), may I say that there are no appeals pending. On his major point, the discussions that began today do not reopen the constitution that was agreed in September. That is understood by the French Government. I had talks today with my opposite number from the French Government who came to Britain for that purpose. They are not intended to reopen the constitutional basis on which it is intended that the New Hebrides should be granted independence.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) rightly said, these discussions were foreseen when Second Reading was debated earlier this month. Both sides accepted the proposal for discussions some time ago and they have now begun. Efforts were made by the Chief Minister to start discussions in the New Hebrides. Unfortunately, his efforts did not succeed. The French and British Governments thought that it would be a good opportunity to start the discussions now because the New Hebrides Government were due to come to Europe at this time for talks about aid. The primary purpose of the visit of the Chief Minister and his colleagues to France a few days ago, and to this country now, was to deal with the question of aid from the French and British Governments.

Mr. Christopher Price: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not pursue that point because we are dealing with clause 3 (1) (a) which refers to possible appeals which might be pending before the appointed day.

Mr. Price: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on this issue dealing with possible appeals at independence, which might accrue for one reason or another. The point I want to deal with,

pursuant to any possible litigation which might take place—

The First Deputy Chairman: All of this might be in order on Third Reading.

Mr. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I realise that it might be in order on Third Reading, but this is a serious matter and it is open to hon. Members to try to use parliamentary procedures to get assurances at the right stage in our legislation so that we do not find ourselves blocked at further points. I realise that this matter will be pursued on Third Reading. Perhaps I could put this short point. The Minister said that the primary purpose of the visit was aid. What is the secondary purpose?

The First Deputy Chairman: At the moment we are dealing with the question of appeals to the Privy Council which might be pending. I hardly think that that point could be defined as being within the scope of those words.

Mr. Ogden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. If the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the supreme judicial body in the country, almost anything could find its way to it. Unless there is general agreement, here and out there, any number of appeals can come up to it. We could talk of aid, trade, self-defence, civil affairs, air-raid shelters, the state of the harbours. Anything like that could fall within the ambit of the Privy Council, particularly in view of this condominium business. Almost anything could fall within this phrase about possible or pending appeals to the Privy Council.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade me that we are having a Second Reading debate now.

Mr. Blaker: I shall try to keep within the guidelines which you have laid down Mr. Godman Irvine. I shall, therefore, leave the question of aid.
Returning to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West about the purposes of this visit, the leaders of the moderate parties and the customary chiefs came to Paris a little while ago—and also visited London—to ventilate their anxieties. It is those anxieties which are being discussed in the talks which began today. The opportunity of the presence


of the customary chiefs and the leaders of the moderate parties and members of the Government of the New Hebrides in Europe was felt to be a good occasion to encourage them to get together.
The matters being discussed are the protection of the rights of the customary chiefs, the matter of decentralisation of Government powers, and in general, reassurance to the francophone minority in the New Hebrides. These are the sorts of thing which can be tackled within the constitution as it exists. The hon. Member will have looked at the constitution and will have seen that there are separate sections dealing with decentralisation and the role of the chiefs. I hope that I can reassure him about the nature of the talks which are taking place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Question proposed, That this schedule be the second schedule to the Bill.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I wish to ask one or two questions. One of the things which worries us considerably about the passage of the Bill, especially the speed at which it has been taken, arises from the fact that we were given to understand early on that it was an agreed measure.
Earlier I raised with the Minister the question—I did not receive a satisfactory answer—of what would be the position if the New Hebrides were to ask for assistance from the British Government, say, between now and independence. The schedule provides for arrangements for the Services and outside forces which fall due because of our own Acts.
I should like the Minister to say what would happen if the New Hebrides, faced with difficulties in relation to operating their own police force, were to ask us for assistance in maintaining law and order, to establish their control over the whole of their country before independence is granted.
This is a very important point. There is a real worry on this side of the House

because we have not been given adequate assurances on this point.

Mr. Blaker: If questions of law and order arise between now and independence the British and French Governments have certain responsibilities to discharge. They have responsibilities to ensure that the constitutional position is preserved and ultimately that internal security is preserved. The hon. Lady may know that recently joint police forces have been sent to the islands of Santo and Tanna where the main problems arise; and law and order has been maintained there. The situation now is tranquil. We have stated in answer to questions in the House that the British Government will do what is necessary to maintain law and order. Further police forces are available. The hon. Lady may be satisfied that we believe that we have the means to ensure that law and order is maintained.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Mr. Blaker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
There has already been what I believe was a very substantial debate on Second Reading. I am sorry that I was not able to take part in it because I was abroad. That debate covered the content of the Bill and the constitutional developments leading up to the introduction of the Bill. I do not think that the House would want me to repeat what was said on Second Reading, but the House will want to know of a number of developments which have occurred since then and to some of which I have already referred.
The security situation in the New Hebrides, especially on the island of Santo, has rightly caused the House some concern in the past. I am happy to report that the New Hebrides Government Agency on Santo has been reopened and the Government Agent reinstalled. The situation there, and throughout the islands, remains calm. Meanwhile, there have been positive moves to find a solution to the political difficulties that divide the New Hebrides Government from some of the opposition parties and some of the customary chiefs.

Mr. Christopher Price: We accept, as the Minister says, that the situation is calm on Santo. However, is the Government Agent there on his own, as he was before, or has he a police force to look after him?

Mr. Blaker: He has a police force. It is a combined Franco-British police group.
I have already referred to the nature of the problems which need to be resolved. I said a short while ago, and I repeat, that I do not regard the talks that began today, and which I hope will continue, as reopening the constitution that was agreed in September 1979. I think that the talks are a hopeful development. I think that the anxieties of the francophone element of the population and of the customary chiefs are real although I do not think that they are justified. The statesmanlike way in which Fr Walter Lini, the Chief Minister, responded to those anxieties is much to be commended.
There was some discussion on Second Reading of what was meant by the Melanesian way of solving problems. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dun-woody) asked the question. I have only recently come to know Melanesians. However, it is my understanding that it is the Melanesian practice, when they have problems, not to resolve them by force and violence but rather to seek a way of discussing them continually, and if necessary at length, until a consensus is reached. For that reason, the fact that the talks have opened is an encouraging step.
As I have mentioned, M. Dijoud, my French opposite number, and I had talks this afternoon with the Chief Minister and his colleagues and the other parties that I have mentioned. We then left the meeting. M. Dijoud and I left the New Hebridians to their own discussions. The objective of the French and British Governments in recent weeks since the problems emerged has been to encourage the dialogue to which I have referred. I believe that a continuation of that dialogue is the right way to proceed.
I have the assurance of my French colleague that he will do everything that he can to assist the talks, and it will be the objective of Her Majesty's Government to do the same, until a satisfactory outcome has been achieved. I believe that both sides are committed to finding

a solution that will ensure an early and peaceful transition of a united New Hebrides to independence.
The Chief Minister expects to propose shortly a date for independence during May to July. We look forward to that occasion and to close and harmonious relations with the independent New Hebrides as fellow members of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Christopher Price: Independence seems to have slipped. At one stage both British and French Governments were talking about May. At one stage they were talking about early May. On Second Reading the Under-Secretary of State, who took the place of the Minister, used the words "May to June". Now out of the blue the month of July has slipped into the picture. When did that happen?

Mr. Blaker: The resolution that was passed some time ago by the Assembly of the New Hebrides stated a wish for independence between May and July of this year. That was not a suggestion by Her Majesty's Government or the French Government. It was the wish of the Parliament of the New Hebrides. If the date for independence is later than early May, that will be the result of the wish of the Government of the New Hebrides. Her Majesty's Government are ready for independence in May if that is the wish of the Government of the New Hebrides.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I must plainly tell the Minister that I am extraordinarily unhappy about the passing of this Bill, not because I do not wholly welcome independence for the New Hebrides but because the passage of the Bill—certainly the Committee stage—appears to have gone smoothly, only because we are simply not getting answers to the questions that we have put to the Minister.
On Second Reading—an important debate—it was clear that hon. Members on both sides had considerable reservations about the situation in the New Hebrides. The Minister said that, although the talks would be reopened, they would not be reopened on the constitution because that had been agreed and the safeguards had been built in. He said that we were agreed with the


French Government that we would relinquish power in an orderly manner.
If that is so, no one would be more delighted than me. From my experience in the European Parliament, I was slightly astonished at the speed and ease with which the British and French Governments seemed to have come to total agreement, but I was naturally delighted that such a new phenomenon should have occurred. However, since Second Reading there have been in the British press—even today—clear statements indicating that the situation in the New Hebrides is nothing like as calm and organised as the Minister assured us it was.
I have always had considerable reservations about the problems that I thought would face the New Hebrides when it became independent. When there is such a strong historical divide to overcome, it is obvious that there will be considerable pressures of religion, language and social classes. Plainly some of the difficulties that exist now stem from the problems that were created by the ex-colonial powers.
If the constitution is not up for discussion, I am sure that the Minister will be only too happy to make that plain in the talks. He says that this is the first opportunity to have occurred of getting the two main parties to the discussion together, but there can certainly be no going back on the guarantees that were given in the constitutional conference. That would be not only quite wrong but extremely damaging.
The hon. Gentleman says that the francophone section of the community is anxious. Anxiety is well known in a democratic State. I frequently feel anxious when I survey the result of the last general election in this country. But that anxiety does not justify one using one's power to go outside the law, to try to seize control of local government or of the area in which one lives.
It is important to remember that if any difficulties arise which require the use of either the joint police forces or Service units from outside, the Government should stand ready to respond. In the Financial Times today, not a noticeably revolutionary digest, we are told that the British Government have not been prepared to use their police forces and have

kept them in barracks for fear of embarrassing their French colleagues. I should have thought that if there were any spillover of British problems with the French in Europe into the political situation in the New Hebrides, Her Majesty's Government would be doing themselves less than justice as a Government in a position of responsibility. It must be clear that in these discussions and in the handover of independence the Government's responsibility is to the people of the New Hebrides.
Will the local government commission sit again? Are the French members of that commission sitting in on the meetings and enabling them to go ahead? If that is so—it is reported in the newspapers that it is not so—it is evident that they intend the transition to be peaceful.
The Minister started to say—although you reminded him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he would be out of order—that the discussions arose in the realm of aid. The Minister knows that aid is the most important problem that we shall have to consider. The New Hebrides requires considerable assistance with its budget deficit. I should like an assurance from the Minister on the attitude of the French Government and our Government towards monetary support for the New Hebrides Government. It is not sufficient to say that we have now given independence and a certain degree of aid, and that they should now be prepared to deal with all the problems that are likely to arise.
It is pretty poor that we are discussing such an important Bill late at night, when there are so many questions outstanding. I do not believe that the House knows the true situation in the New Hebrides. It has not been spelt out. The calm assurance of the Minister is not a substitute for fact. It will be helpful if he says that Britain's responsibility to the New Hebrides is to help it to independence, to give it assurances that will enable it to maintain law and order within its borders, and to maintain the writ of central Government, even though talks are taking place as to the degree of devolution of power from the centre. The Government should be prepared to give a clear indication as to the amount of aid that will be available.
Before the Bill is passed, we should know that it is the firm intention of the Government to tell our French partners


and the people of the New Hebrides that if there are real problems and politicial difficulties it is our intention to be as supportive as we can, and that we have no intention of abandoning the New Hebrideans until we are satisfied that all those conditions are fulfilled.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: ; I had not thought that I should find myself speaking on Third Reading on this Bill, which makes provision for independence being given to the New Hebrides. But I am in that position because, despite the fact that the Bill started its passage through Parliament in another place in February, and had its Second Reading in this Chamber on 6 March, the question of citizenship does not seem to be as clearly stated as I believe it should be.
Although you may tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should have raised the matter in Committee, on clause 1, my lack of absolute knowledge prevented me from rising then but forces me now to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to explain the exact position. In the explanatory memorandum, clause 1 is said to modify
the British Nationality Act 1948 so as to confer the status of British subject and Commonwealth citizen on citizens of the New Hebrides, with effect from the independence of the New Hebrides.
I emphasise that the explanatory memorandum says that the clause is to confer that status
on citizens of the New Hebrides",
not on some of the citizens. Yet my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs appeared to suggest when he wound up the Second Reading debate that there would be two classes of citizenship provided to the inhabitants of the New Hedbrides. He said:
Under the independence constitution they"—
he was talking about the 112,000 indigenous New Hedrideans—
will acquire New Hcdridean citizenship on independence.
There are about 5,000 French citizens living in the New Hebrides, 1,500 Australians, New Zealanders and citizens of other independent Commonwealth countries and 460 citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. This Bill

provides for them to continue as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies."—[Official Report, 6 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 709.]
It may be because of my inability to understand the precise meaning of those words, but my hon. Friend appeared to me to suggest that the indigenous population were to acquire New Hebridean citizenship, while 8,000 of the 120,000 people living in the islands were to be given the status of British subject and Commonwealth citizen. If that is so, clearly Clause 1 is not correctly drafted, and if it is not correctly drafted I find it difficult to see how the Bill can be given a Third Reading until we know precisely what is in the Government's mind, and whether we intend to confer the status of British subject and Commonwealth citizen on all 120,000 New Hebrideans or only, as my hon. Friend seemed to suggest, on the 8,000 referred to in the passage that I have quoted.
I raise these questions because during the past week there came to see me a constituent who thought himself to be a British citizen, until he received a letter from the Home Office informing him that, because he was born in the Seychelles, he was not a British citizen. In that letter, which I believe is entirely pertinent to clause 1, a Home Office official wrote:
When a dependent territory attains indepenence it is the practice for the United Kingdom Parliament to enact legislation which withdraws citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, with certain exceptions, from all who automatically became citizens of the new country under its constitution. Generally speaking the persons excepted are those who were born in the United Kingdom.
That is clearly the Home Office view, expressed in a letter of 23 January this year. But, if we are to believe the words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in the winding-up speech on 6 March, we are making a considerable exception for the New Hebrides, for we are making an exception not only for the 460 citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies but for "5,000 French citizens" and
Australians, New Zealanders and citizens of other independent Commonwealth countries.
In other words, we seem to have got into a muddle.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State may be able to clarify the position. I look forward to his reply.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not intend to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), though I support his right to raise an issue of that kind on Third Reading.
I do not apologise for keeping the House a little longer at this time of night, because it is one of the best features of this Chamber that we can probe the real issues in public on an occasion of this kind.
I had not imagined that it would be possible at any stage in the passage of the Bill to take a vote, but, as a result of certain things that I understand have been going on in the negotiations in Paris and in London, and that will go on in the next few days, I must say that unless I receive from the Minister an explanation that satisfies me I cannot rule that out.
I have already praised the Minister for his handling of the negotiations. However, it does not seem sensible to hold this debate at midnight on a Wednesday. Before the business managers set the time, the Government knew that delicate negotiations were in train. Some people associate those negotiations with the word "blackmail". I do not use that word. However, hon. Members will understand the use of that word as I develop my argument.
As I said during the brief discussion of clause 3, long and painful negotiations have extended over several years. Those negotiations were undertaken by Lord Goronwy-Roberts, a former Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the Labour Government, and by the present Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). The British and French agreed that the New Hebrides should move towards independence. A constitutional conference was called. Elections took place. An assembly was elected. Everything was set for independence to take place smoothly in May of this year.
What happened? After independence, armed force and violence were used. One particular island was subject to violence. Two other islands suffered to a lesser extent. Jimmy Stephens and others created a situation that necessitated the withdrawal of a Government representa-

tive from one island. For a short time there was a breakdown of law and order. Everyone thought that the constitution had been settled. The French and those with francophone interests now seem to say that as a breakdown in law and order occurred on Santo during October and November—and to a lesser extent on Tanna and other islands—another set of negotiations can take place.
Tha Minister of State said tonight that he did not interpret this as a reopening of the constitutional issue. However, his colleague, the Under-Secretary said in reply to a question that I asked:
I stress to him that the British and French Governments are totally committed to the agreements that were reached last autumn in Vila about the constitution and the agreement to proceed towards independence between May and June of 1980.
That date has now been moved to July. However, he continued:
We are totally committed to that."—
that commitment cannot have been total as the date has now been changed—
as are the French Government, and we owe it to our friends and to the Government in the New Hebrides to ensure that we proceed along those lines".—[Official Report, 6 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 706.]
Since then, the Under-Secretary has said that he would invite the Government-elect of the New Hebrides and the opposition parties to London in order to relieve anxiety. However, the Government-elect went first to Paris and then to London. They did so not primarily to relieve anxieties, but to negotiate aid.
It is suggested that during these negotiations of aid it was put to the Government by the French—and I do not accuse the Minister—that aid will not be forthcoming unless an accommodation is made to meet those people responsible for the breakdown of law and order in the island of Santo a few months ago. If that is true, it is a scandal.
The constitution was negotiated. Two Ministers in this House gave a pledge that it would not be reopened. The constitution envisages a regional Government with a good deal of regional autonomy. The hon. Gentleman and I have studied that constitution with equal care.
I understand the demand to be that that degree of regional autonomy be set aside in favour of a confederation. If French aid is contingent on the present


Government giving in and accepting, against their will, under threat of blackmail, confederation as the price of independence, it is not only a scandal but an absolute breach of faith.
I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman. I have followed events in the New Hebrides carefully over the past few years. The activities of the British Government so far have been wholly honourable. They have tried to move the New Hebrides towards independence in the way that they successfully moved to independence the Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Tuvalu. However, here there is a complication not of their making but of their predecessors in 1870, when it was decided to share the New Hebrides between the British and French naval forces, out of which the condominium arose.
It is incumbent on the Minister to allay our anxieties. On clause 3 I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that, although the primary purpose of the delegation visiting Paris and London was to negotiate aid, the secondary purpose was to allay anxieties.
When the constitution was negotiated in September, the assumption was that the British and French Governments would make available sufficient aid to allow the New Hebrides to be a viable country on independence. To that extent, constitutional negotiations cannot be separated from aid negotiations. I take the point that the actual negotiations have to be separate—first the constitution, then aid. Implicit in the constitutional negotiations was an assumption that, having settled the constitution and had the elections, reasonable and sufficient aid to run this country would be forthcoming. The New Hebrides is bureaucratically top heavy through no fault of the Melanesians but because of the absurd condominium system wished on them by rival naval powers in the Pacific over 100 years ago.
Now it seems that, months after the constitutional negotiations and when it appears that the New Hebrides is on the brink of independence, the French have suddenly erected such enormous barriers in the way of reasonable aid that it seems that either the independence is in jeopardy or the Government of the New Hebrides, constitutionally and properly elected, will have to submit to changes in

a constitution, negotiated only a few months ago, in order to get independence.
The budget of the New Hebrides has a 60 per cent. deficit, which is no fault of the New Hebrideans. It is because everything has to be done in English and French. Anyone with experience of the European Parliament where 70 per cent. of expenditure is due to linguistic and geographical factors in terms of translation, interpretation and floods of papers knows that bilingual work raises the cost of administration enormously. It is not the fault of the New Hebrides.
I hope that the Minister will agree that it is the responsibility of the two metropolitan Governments—the British and the French—to give sufficient aid, even though it may be disproportionate to the settlements made in the Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Tuvalu, to meet a situation for which those two Governments are totally responsible.
The question of the level of aid that the Minister is able to guarantee on behalf of the British Government and that which the French are willing to give is crucial. Making a condominium independent has happened only once before—in the Sudan—in the history of the post-Imperial world and I agree that it is a complicated matter, but simple assurances about the British Government's attitude are not enough.
We must have concrete assurances from the Minister about the French Government's attitude to aid and whether they have said that further aid is conditional on further concessions by the Government of Father Walter Lini and his colleagues. We must have such assurances before deciding whether to let the Bill through.
The constitutional conference took place, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, in a context in which the Vanuaaku Pati made substantial concessions far beyond those that it had intended to make. Since the conference, it has leant over backwards in including members of the Na Griamel and other parties in commissions, committees and delegations abroad to try to unite and reconcile the different factions in the New Hebrides. If, after all that, it is expected to make further concessions and


the French Government really are demanding such concessions, the independence could be put in jeopardy.
I do not want to make a great deal of the French difficulties in this regard. They have a governor there, M. Robert, who is a supporter of Chirac and a Minister of Overseas Development who is a supporter of Giscard. I realise the French Government's difficult and severe problems.
I hope that the Minister, who has been forthright in his defence of New Hebridean interests so far, is not being complacent in the face of French demands because of some new policy under which we are giving in all along the line outside Europe in order to be nice to the French and achieve some settlement within Europe. I am not making any accusation. But the Minister must realise that all relations at present and all concessions by the British Government to the French Government will be looked upon in the context of the budget argument within the EEC. I hope that the Minister can give an absolute assurance that the New Hebrides settlement, which still hangs in the balance because of the talks that are going on, has no connection with the separate argument over the EEC budget.
The Minister, in saying that independence would now be between May and July, gave me an assurance that this was the wish of the New Hebrides and that it was for the New Hebrides to choose the exact point in that spectrum for independence. I hope that it is true. When a country is negotiating for aid, crucial for its viability, assurances of that sort do not carry the weight that would apply in other circumstances.
I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the New Hebrides will be able to proceed to independence at the pace envisaged in September and chosen by the New Hebrides. I would wish to hear full reassurances, particularly on the French attitude to aid and the strings attached by them, before feeling happy about allowing the Bill to go through without a Division.

Mr. Matthew Parris: I should not like to allow this occasion to pass without the expression of a note of congratulation and good

wishes from a Back-Bench Member whose boyhood ambition was to be a colonial administrator in the New Hebrides. While other boys wanted to be train drivers and airline pilots, it was always my ambition to achieve a junior and perhaps later in life a senior administrative post in colonial administration.
Somewhere, in the yellowing archives of some bureaucrat's file, there is a letter from a little boy in Southern Rhodesia asking how he might pursue a career in the New Hebrides colonial administration. With adolescence came the dawning awareness that the independence of the New Hebrides was inevitable. I decided to pursue perhaps the only other career comparable in dignity and romance with a career in the colonial service—to become a Member of this House.
As fate had it, I was not destined for the New Hebrides and the New Hebrides was not destined to see me. I take this occasion to wish the islands and the islanders well after independence.

Mr. Ogden: Had the wishes of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) been brought to fruition, I am certain that he would have been a friend, a help and a partner to the people of the New Hebrides. Events did not work out that way. However, his words of friendship will be welcomed both in the House and in the New Hebrides.
I should like to cheer the Government and perhaps my hon. Friends by saying that I am not opposing the Bill for the sake of opposition. It is not my intention deliberately to keep hon. Members from their beds at this hour of night. However, between the Second Reading and tonight there has occurred, if I may use a phrase of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) many years ago, a faint smell of burning in the hold. The Bill is not as straightforward as it seemed to be on 6 March.
I pay tribute to the work done by the Minister and his colleagues in helping the Bill to progress. As one Lancastrian to another, I tell the Minister that we do not want to be told only the truth and nothing but the truth; we want to be told the whole truth. If it is apparent later that the Minister has deliberately withheld certain facts from us tonight, that would


be counter to what he and the House wish. If there is anything we should know, this is the time for the Minister to tell us.
Much of what I wish to say tonight I wanted to say on Second Reading but I was unable to be here at that time. I bear in mind that on Third Reading we can talk only about what is in the Bill, not what should be in it.
I share the concern of my hon. Friends including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), and I add my good wishes to the people of the islands. I say that not because it is our duty to lift our eyes from our own problems to the needs and well-being of the people of other islands, but because I have waited 37 years to make one mention of my own debt to the people of these islands.
About 37 years ago I was a very young merchant navy officer with a free Dutch ship out of Batavia, the m.v. "Tjibesar". The ship had come out of Java. We were under United States maritime commission control and direction. We had Dutch officers, a Javanese crew and an American marine gun crew, who thought that every time there was trouble we should take our little four-inch gun and go looking for it, whereas our God-given direction was to get the hell out of it and go in the opposite direction. We were taking inflammable cargo from the west coast of the United States to the Polar ice, up to New Zealand and Australia, through the Barrier Reef and to the New Hebrides and New Caledonia. At that time that was the edge of the boundary between the Japanese-occupied islands of the Pacific and the free world.
Thanks to the help and support which my ship had from the people of those islands—and their eyes and information were better than those who operated Marconi radios—we were saved from considerable difficulties. The support that the people on the frontier of the free world gave to Australia and New Zealand had much to do with the fact that we are able to speak today in the House as free people in a free country. We should not hold bitterness against old enemies, but we should not forget old friends either. That is my small way of saying thank you.
On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State said that the Government had resolved to encourage the protagonists to work out their problems amongst themselves in the "Melanesian way". My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) took that up. The Melanesians are hospitable, friendly, delightful and charming people with all the virtues in the world, but to assume that the "Melanesian way" does not exclude forthright expressions of opinion and a determination to use force if necessary is like saying that the Irish are charming but one must not assume that they are always pacific. The "Melanesian way" can be as violent as any other way.
I now use a kind of shorthand to describe some of the elements in the New Hebrides that might conjoin to cause a great many problems. Those elements are the custom union, Mr. Jimmy Stephens, Santo, Fr Lini, the Vanuaaku Pati, and the Phoenix Foundation. The possible involvement of American interests has not been mentioned in the debate. If part of the troubles in the New Hebrides could be American inspired, what consultations, if any, have the British Government had with the United States? The United States is interested in good relations in the Pacific and also in whether their citizens are fostering good relations with their allies or causing difficulties throughout the Pacific. I hope that the British and French Governments, jointly or separately, have had discussions with the United States about the alleged activities of some Americans in that part of the world.
Aid of £6 million was discussed on Second Reading. My information is that trade from the New Hebrides seems to flow in the direction of France either through New Caledonia or French dependencies in the Pacific. If a French-dominated State—the result either of the New Caledonia connection or the lethargy of some of our Australian friends from time to time—is to come into the British Commonwealth, what relationships will emerge?
Aid must continue but what efforts are being made to secure a greater proportion of trade from the New Hebrides for Britain rather than France?
There is also the question of nationality in the new state in the light of reports


that a new British Nationality Act is on the political horizon. Whatever is decided by this Bill, I hope that the status of former British citizens in the New Hebrides will not be upset in six or 12 months by a new British Nationality Act. It will be the worst possible way of establishing the new nationality of our former friends and partners in the New Hebrides if people who are now British subjects have to enter into a new relationship with us in six or 12 months. I should like an assurance about that from the Minister.
We have had the truth from the Government so far. That is not a criticism but a compliment. If there is anything that we should know, tonight is the time to tell us. I wish our former friends—who are by no means subjects—well and welcome them as partners.

Mr. Blaker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby, (Mr. Ogden) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) for their kind references to the part that I played in the important work of preparing the New Hebrides for independence.
I was frankly somewhat surprised at the tone of the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), because she seemed to suggest that we were acting in a hole-in-the-corner manner in taking the Bill at this time. I have the strong impression that the Government of the New Hebrides, for whom she is clearly concerned, want us to proceed with our preparations for independence without delay. They may want a date for independence as early as May. If that is to happen, they will need to know that we are ready because they will have to make preparations for what will be an important event in the history of their country.
The other parties now engaged in the talks which began in London today have assured me that they want to move towards independence. Some members of those other parties want some changes made in the arrangements in the New Hebrides—I shall come to that matter later—and others appear to want something rather different. But they have all assured me that they want to move to independence. Therefore, it is right

that we should get ourselves into a position to be able to respond as soon as the New Hebrides Government tell us that they wish to go ahead.
I am happy to tell the House that the talks, which began this afternoon, will be continued tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
The hon. Member for Crewe referred to the problems of running a condominium. They are very real. Having seen something of those problems over the last six months or more, I should not recommend anybody to set up a condominium if it can possibly be avoided. It is an extraordinarily difficult thing to operate.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West referred to the Sudan. I understand that that was relatively simple to run, because of the two partners in the condominium only one ran it—the United Kingdom. That may explain why it was a successful operation.
The situation is different in the New Hebrides. Two countries are running the condominium. That necessarily gives rise to great difficulties in the operation of the condominium and in unwinding it and bringing it to independence. I certainly do not underestimate these problems.
I was asked about the article in the Financial Times today. I thought that it was a good article, but the contributor is not quite up to date. I do not know when he was last there. Things have moved on since that article was written. The position on Santo regarding law and order has improved. There are police there. The office of the agent has been reopened and he is operating there.

Mr. Christopher Price: How many police are on Santo at the moment?

Mr. Blaker: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer off the cuff, but there are enough to maintain law and order at the present time.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Crewe to make plain in the talks whether the constitution was up for discussion. I have already done that this afternoon. That was the point with which I started my remarks in opening the conference.
I return to the question of the maintenance of law and order. I ask hon.


Members to take into account the nature of life in the New Hebrides. It is rather different from life in this country. A taboo can be put on premises, according to local custom, and that makes use of those premises impossible for a time. That is what happened with the district agent's office. We cannot charge in and deal with that kind of problem in the same way as we might deal with a problem in Lewisham, for example. We have to act with rather more finesse and subtlety. What is more, we have to act in co-operation with our partners, the French. I mention that point only to show that the matter is not quite as simple as some hon. Members thought.

Mrs. Dunwoody: With the greatest respect to the Minister, many of us understand that the position is not the same as that which pertains in some parts of this country, although it is not unknown for people to put taboos on things here. I say, very seriously, that there is disquiet about possible American interference. The geographical size of the area could lead the central Government into a difficult position. Someone could take over an area which has to be policed, and those police have to be brought into the area from outside. I ask for an assurance that both nations are prepared, if the occasion arises again, to put in police forces to bring the position under control.

Mr. Blaker: I can give the hon. Lady an assurance that I am keeping in close touch with my French opposite number, and that we are dedicated to upholding the constitution. I quote the words which we used in the communiqué:
to uphold the constitution and maintain the integrity of the New Hebrides.
I was asked for an assurance that any problems that we have in our relationship with France in the EEC would not spill over into the New Hebrides. I give an assurance gladly that the problems of the New Hebrides are treated on their merits. Anybody present at the discussion that I held with M. Dijoud would, if he had not known of the problems in the EEC, not have guessed them from those discussions. We had frank and close discussions which were not overshadowed by the problems to which hon. Members have referred.
I mentioned the communiqué issued on 8 January. Perhaps this is a suitable moment to tell the House what we said at that time, which still holds good. The communiqué was issued after a meeting in Paris between M. Dijoud, myself and the New Hebrides Government. It states:
The French and British Ministers reaffirmed to Fr Lini their intention to do everything they can to smooth the path to independence for the New Hebrides and to counter all threats to the unity of the country.
Both Ministers rejected any secessionist activity that may occur in the islands and assured the New Hebrides Government of their entire support.
Moving on to the suggestion that we should encourage a dialogue between the New Hebrides Government, the other parties and custom chiefs in the New Hebrides, we said:
The French and British Ministers declared their intention to use their good offices to promote such a dialogue.
The discussions that are presently being held in London were foreseen for a long time. As I said earlier, they were actively sought by Fr Lini in the New Hebrides, but without success.
I was asked about trade and aid. Trade is an important factor. One of the problems which face the New Hebrides is the lack of natural resources. At the moment experts in the New Hebrides provided by the Overseas Development Administration are looking for minerals and other resources that can be exploited so that the New Hebrides can benefit sooner rather than later and become self-sufficient. This must be the objective at which we aim. It will not be satisfactory for us, or the people of the New Hebrides, if they are permanent pensioners of Britain and France. They would not want that situation to prevail.
Consequently, one of the objectives of the aid which we shall be giving to the New Hebrides will be to seek out means of developing their own resources and trade. As for British aid, at present we are providing aid of about £6 million a year. Of this, £1.3 million is capital aid, £3.2 million is budgetary support to supplement the New Hebrides budget—that goes largely to education and health services—and £1.5 million is manpower aid. That is a reasonably substantial figure to give a country of 120,000 people. A British aid team recently visited the


New Hebrides for preliminary talks about aid after independence.
Further discussions with the New Hebrides delegation, led by the Chief Minister, will begin in London on Monday next.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister was specifically asked whether he could give us some indication of the attitude of the French Government. He has made clear that this must be done in tandem. Although we have been given clear figures from the British, it would be helpful if we knew what restrictions, if any, the French Government are putting on the negotiations and whether they intend using the question of aid as a bargaining counter before allowing independence to go ahead.

Mr. Blaker: I shall come to the question of French aid in a moment.
As for British aid, the discussions will begin in London with Fr Lini and his team within the next few days. We shall enter into these negotiations in a positive spirit, taking into account the problems faced by the New Hebrides Government in integrating the separate administrations inherited from Britain and France. I should add that, as a dependency of Britain and France, the New Hebrides already benefits from the European development fund. On independence, the country will be entitled to full membership of the Lomé convention.
As for the attitude of the French Government towards aid, those talks have only just begun. They certainly have not been concluded. Therefore, I cannot tell the House what the decisions of the French Government on aid will be. But I can say that the French Government do not regard the talks which are taking place as reopening the constitution.
I was asked—

Mr. Christopher Price: If that is all the Minister intends to say about what some of us consider to be the absolute crux of the debate, I have to say that it is unsatisfactory. One can accept that the French Government say that the negotiations are not reopening the discussion on the constitution, but can the Minister say whether the French believe there are any connections between the aid negotiations and the demands of the francophone par-

ties for forms of confederation? If so, can he tell us what the British Government understand those connections to be?

Mr. Blaker: I do not think that I can say any more than I have already said. The talks with the French have just begun. I do not know what the French attitude on aid will be.
I was asked whether it was a condition of aid that there should be confederation. The word "confederation" has been mentioned by one or two members of the moderate delegation, but it is not my impression that it is the demand of that delegation as a whole. The House was told that the Vanuaaku Pati—the Government—has made concessions. Indeed it has. But the customary chiefs believe that they, too, have made concessions. They have criticisms, which they have ventilated, of the way in which the Government have conducted their affairs since they won their victory in the elections last November. I believe that the fears of the francophones, the customary chiefs, are real. Therefore, it is desirable that these fears should be ventilated in these talks.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West about the date for independence. I was asked whether it was simply up to the New Hebrides Government to choose an independence date. It is not quite as simple as that. The Parliament has passed a resolution calling for independence between the months that I mentioned, but when the New Hebrides Government are ready to make a proposal the French and the British Governments will have to consider the date with the Government of the New Hebrides.
I was asked about American influences. I think that hon. Members had in mind the Phoenix Foundation. Various organisations, including the Phoenix Foundation, have previously had contacts with the Na Griamel movement which, as hon. Members will know, is the movement of Jimmy Stephens on Santo. But the present problems in the New Hebrides arise primarily from internal circumstances. I have no evidence to suggest that they have been exacerbated by outside interference. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson)—

Mr. Ogden: I was not asking only about American influence. I was asking


whether any representations had been made by the hon. Gentleman's Department with the United States Department in connection with the possible activities of some American citizens in that part of the world. I presume that the answer is that none had been made.

Mr. Blaker: That is not so. We have had some contact with the American Government on that matter and we are watching the position closely. Powers exist on the part of the New Hebrides Government and the British and French Governments to control entry into the New Hebrides.
On the question of nationality, I should like to give a fairly full answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, because I know that this is a matter in which hon. Members are greatly interested. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the nationality provisions of the Bill are limited in scope in comparison with other independence Bills. Clause 1 will make citizens of the New Hebrides Commonwealth citizens in United Kingdom law. This is a normal consequence of a territory becoming independent and joining the Commonwealth.
The Bill does not, unlike the majority of independence Bills, include the usual complex provisions taking away citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from those who become citizens of the new State. This is because the circumstances of the New Hebrides differ radically from those obtaining in the normal case of a territory which is a British colony before its independence. In a colony the vast majority of the population has the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies before independence and the independence Act usually takes away this status from those who become citizens of the new State. This is subject to the usual saving which permits those with close connections with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency—for example, by birth, descent, naturalisation or registration—to retain their status as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies even if they become citizens of the new State. In the New Hebrides, however, only a tiny minority of the population are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Broadly speaking, the population is made up as follows. First, there are the

indigenous New Hebrideans, who under the 1914 protocol establishing the condominium have the status of natives and are not to be given the nationality of either the United Kingdom or France. These people are at the moment technically stateless, although they carry special travel documents when travelling abroad which enable them to call on the British or French authorities for protection where necessary. Under the independence constitution, these people will acquire New Hebrides citizenship at independence. According to a recent census, they number about 112,500 out of a total population of about 120,000.
Secondly, there are French citizens, who are thought to number about 5,000. Thirdly, there are citizens of Australia, New Zealand and other independent Commonwealth countries. These citizens are thought to number about 1,500. Lastly, there are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, who are thought to number about 460.
It is only in respect of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies that provision might be made for the continuation, or otherwise, of their status as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. According to immigration statistics compiled in Vila, about 380 of the 460 are patrials, which means that they have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. About 20 come from Hong Kong. These people would accordingly have benefited had the usual provisions been made in the Bill from the saving for those with connections with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency, and would have kept their status as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in any event.
That leaves a residue of about 60 citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It is not possible from the information available to determine with which territory they are particularly connected. As under the British Nationality Acts the circumstances in which a person may become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by connection with the New Hebrides are extremely limited, it is likely that many of the 60 have connections with other territories.
The position under the independence constitution is also relevant. A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies with New Hebridean ancestry—that is, with


at least one New Hebridean ancestor—will have a right to New Hebrides citizenship upon application. A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has lived in the New Hebrides for at least 10 years may apply for naturalisation as a New Hebrides citizen. In either case under the new constitution of the New Hebrides he must renounce his United Kingdom citizenship within three months of acquiring New Hebrides citizenship.
Thus, for those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who become New Hebrides citizens, the renunciation requirement makes it superfluous to deprive them of their United Kingdom citizenship in the Bill.
As for citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who do not become citizens of the New Hebrides, the great majority owe their United Kingdom citizenship to connections with the United Kingdom or Hong Kong and would thus keep it if the normal provisions were included in the Bill, whereas the minority, if any, whose connections are solely with the New Hebrides constitute such an insignificant number that it is not considered worthwhile making special provision in the Bill in respect of them, and they will remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
The Bill is thus able to avoid the usual lengthy and complex nationality provisions and can confine itself to the minimal provisions in clause 1.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The Bill seems to confer the status of British subject and Commonwealth citizens with effect from the independence of all the citizens of the New Hebrides. The stateless persons who have become New Hebrideans will, as I read the explanatory memorandum, then acquire the new status of subject and citizen. Have I misread the memorandum? Does clause 1 have a much more limited role than appears to be so from its wording?

Mr. Blaker: If my hon. Friend studies tomorrow in Hansard what I have said, the position will be clear to him. The answer is that those who become New Hebridean citizens will also become citizens of the Commonwealth. That is perfectly natural. It happens in respect of other member countries of the Commonwealth.

Mrs. Dunwoody: May we have an undertaking that, if between now and the date fixed for independence any of these delicate problems arise to make it difficult for us to feel that we have adequately fulfilled our task as guardians of the future of the New Hebrides, the Minister will be prepared to come back to the House to ensure that we are fully informed about the situation?

Mr. Blaker: If an emergency with serious implications such as I understand the hon. Lady to have in mind arose, of course the House would be informed.
We look forward to the independence of the New Hebrides and to close and harmonious relations with that country as a fellow member of the Commonwealth. That is the purpose of the Bill. The New Hebrides will have the advantage also of being entitled to be a member of the Francophone Association. That is one of the compensations of having been a condominium. We propose on independence to establish a high commission in Vila, and I hope that that will be seen not only as an important contribution to the maintenance of our close links with the New Hebrides which we certainly wish to preserve but as a further indication of our continuing close interest in the whole of the South Pacific.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

SECONDARY EDUCATION (BATLEY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: On 18 February this year the Secretary of State for Education and Science rejected the advertised and widely discussed proposals of the Kirklees metropolitan council for the reorganisation of secondary schools along comprehensive lines in North-East Kirklees. In those proposals were two quite separate schemes to deal separately with the Batley and with the Heckmondwike and Liversedge areas within Kirklees. While I support the proposals for school reorganisation in the


latter townships, I must explain that they fall within the constituency of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller), and are not the subject of this debate. I believe, however, that the Minister could have taken a decision to approve the proposals relating to Batley even if he had decided to reject those connected with the other towns I mentioned. I should be most grateful if the Minister could confirm that that was possible.
The proposals for Batley were for an 11-to-18 age group, co-educational comprehensive school. They followed years of discussion in Batley. As recently as 1974 one scheme was submitted and accepted by the then Minister in 1976, only to be the subject of a refusal by an incoming Conservative council to implement it. After pressure by Shirley Williams and considerable procrastination by the council, further proposals were submitted last spring, only to be held up by the general election and the change of Government.
The latest attempt to bring comprehensive schools to Batley started from scratch again, was fully discussed and agreed by a special education committee of the council meeting in Batley town hall, was agreed by a special council meeting and was then fully and properly advertised locally. It came as a genuine shock to Batley when the Secretary of State eventually rejected the proposals without a word of explanation.
Why did the Secretary of State reject the proposals for Batley without explanation? His action caused deep-felt resentment in the town. The headmistress of the girls' grammar school was quoted in the local newspaper, the Batley News, as saying that she was surprised that no reason had been given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
There are many examples of where reasons for refusal have been given by Secretaries of State for Education, as I am sure the Minister is aware. For example, Liverpool council was told in a letter dated 30 March 1979 why some of its reorganisation proposals were rejected, and as recently as 4 March 1980 the borough of Bexley was given two reasons why its proposals for change were rejected. Apart from the obvious discourtesy to the town, its teachers, parents,

children and councillors, if the reasons why proposals are rejected are not known, how can a council properly reconsider them and resubmit a scheme following that reconsideration?
There may have been two reasons for the Minister's refusal, namely, the co-educational status of the schools proposed, and finance. Inevitably, views differ on the question of single-sex or co-educational schools. Some people are strongly in favour of co-educational schools. Others, including many people in the Muslim community in the town of Batley, for example, prefer single-sex schools. But where there are only two secondary schools involved—as is the case in Batley—it is obviously impossible to meet everyone's wishes. On balance, and after long discussions and public meetings over the years, the local authority decided to introduce a co-educational scheme. Is the Minister, in his rejection of the proposals of Batley, saying that he will override that considered local choice? If so, on what grounds? Does the Minister believe that single-sex schools are preferable to co-educational schools?
One of the difficulties in weighing up the objections to the proposals of Batley is that the Secretary of State has not stated the number of objections, and on what grounds those objections were lodged. As I understand, there were only five or six objections from Batley to the scheme, and only one or two concerned single-sex schools.
Last spring, representatives of the parent-teacher asociations from the two large high schools in Batley handed to the Department of Education and Science a petition signed by nearly 12,000 people supporting co-educational comprehensive schools catering for 11- to 18-year-olds in Batley. The teachers and school governing and management bodies were fully behind the proposals that were submitted.
I give the reaction of Mr. David Bennett, headmaster of one of the high schools, to the rejection, as quoted in the local press. He said:
The decision has put everybody into a position of uncertainty. It is time uncertainty came to an end because it has been here long enough. The scheme had massive support from Batley people, so there must be a powerful reason for turning it down. If not, it does not say much for democracy.


On the financial side, having recently seen the formal submission of the Kirk-lees council, it is possible to say that the council's submission left unclear a number of points that might have helped the Minister. For example, two secondary modern, or high, schools are bursting at the seams already. The headmaster of one of the other high schools involved said that the decision was extremely serious because the present school buildings are overcrowded. They are overcrowded because everyone has been waiting for the Minister to make up his mind about the present application.
Between 1979 and 1984 the schools will have to cope with an extra 700 to 800 children, so considerable extra money must be spent on the secondary schools in try constituency. Therefore, it is vital that the extra money is spent as part of a move towards a comprehensive school programme. It would be ridiculous if money to cater for substantial pressure on schools were spent on a school system that in any case is about to be changed.
Did the Minister ask about the costs? Did he have the proposal costed? If so, what was the estimate? Did he or his officials raise the question with the council?
Then there is the present practice of paying for boys in Batley to go to a private grammar school. There is no State boys' grammar school in the town. Those selected under the present selection system must go to a private school, with fees paid by the local council. That is currently costing the council £270,000 every year in fees alone. Those are resources that would and should have been available to provide the best education opportunities for all of Batley's children in comprehensive schools.
It may be that the Kirklees council did not explain the financial side as clearly as it should have done. But surely the Minister should have discussed his doubts with the council and tried to resolve any problems.
One point on which the town is totally united is the need to keep sixth-form education in Batley. With over 3,000 secondary schoolchildren in the town's future comprehensive schools, Batley's people find it totally unacceptable that there should be any suggestion that the children should have to travel out of town

for sixth-form education. All the political parties in the town are united on that. I quote one of the only two Conservative councillors, who said:
New proposals will have to be submitted. But the authority should not move away from keeping sixth-form education Batley.
Will the Minister state clearly and categorically that he accepts that local view?
The Secretary of State himself said during the Second Reading of his first Education Bill on 19 June last year:
Why should the Secretary of State and his officials … attempt to dictate to a local education authority, which may be many miles away, that one type of school organisation and no other is the right solution for that area? We believe that local people are in a better position to decide."—[Official Report. 19 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 1122.]
Does the Minister stand by that view?
The parents, children and councillors of Batley are fed up with the endless delays in introducing comprehensive schools. The teachers, who do a magnificent job in the local schools, have had their Leaching and careers plagued by uncertainty—totally unreasonably, in my opinion—for far too long. Comprehensive education for children aged 11 to 18 is overwhelmingly supported in Batley, with a petition signed by almost 12,000 people and the support of all the teachers, the governors, the managers and the local council. What more evidence can the Minister possibly ask for?
In his decision of only two weeks ago in relation to Bexley, rejecting the proposal to cease to maintain the Erith school, the Minister gave as one of his two reasons the strength of support for the Erith school in the northern part of the borough. Apart from the support of the great majority of the teaching staff, and almost all the governors, for retaining the school, the Secretary of State received a petition signed by almost 12,000 people. The reasons are identical and even stronger in Batley in relation to the support for the proposals. How can the Minister have rejected such an overwhelming body of support from the town? The Minister appears to have received only five or six objections to weigh against the overwhelming support of teachers, governors, managers, councillors and the 12,000 people who were prepared to sign a petition.
We must now move forward quickly and constructively and respond to Batley's


choice, so strongly expressed. Whatever the past, the Minister would tonight help reduce genuine fears and uncertainties if he would give two assurances. First, does he accept that there is a clear majority view in Batley in favour of comprehensive schools serving 11- to 18-year-olds in the town? Secondly, can he give an assurance that he does not wish to stand in the way, on points of principle, of that local choice? Matters of detail and of implementation can be discussed and resolved. However, I would not be serving Batley, its children, parents and teachers if I did not emphasise the importance that they attach to the Minister's replies. These are important points and concern the future of children in my constituency.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I know that the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) has had a distinguished career in local government. I understand his concern in this matter. I also respect the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) has an equal interest. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) may shake his head. However, I know that my hon. Friend is concerned. I have talked to him more recently than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: He is my Member of Parliament.

Dr. Boyson: In that case, the hon. Gentleman is very privileged. Not everyone has the advantage of living in my hon. Friend's constituency.
The hon. Gentleman made some coherent arguments. He asked whether we were prepared to accept comprehensive education in the area. That point must be cleared up. The Conservative Party has always said that the local area should decide the type of education that it desires. The Labour Party brought in the ill-fated Education Bill of 1976. I was involved with that Bill and wearied by it. The Bill stated that all schools should be comprehensives. The Conservative Party has always said that, in the ultimate, the people of the area should decide the type of school desired. I use the words "in the ultimate" with care.
We decided that decisions should be made locally and nationally. Ultimately the Secretary of State must be convinced that the type of organisation proposed is the best that has been suggested. We therefore repealed the 1976 measure. That was one of our first priorities on coming into office. Hon. Members will be aware that the Education Bill was enacted last year. It relieves authorities of being forced to submit to comprehensive proposals, or to implement them if it was an unwilling duty on their part. We are proud of that. We have redeemed our pledge to the electorate. We reject the idea of a uniform pattern of education throughout the country. We believe that there should be flexibility of provision to suit differing local requirements and wishes.
I am sure that hon. Members will have looked at the decisions already made by the Secretary of State. In certain cases comprehensive schemes have been accepted. They were not rejected just because they were comprehensive schemes. In other areas, including Batley and Morley, consideration has been given to the scheme. The Secretary of State had to consider whether the scheme suggested was the best for that area. The hon. Member said that those who know what is best for an area are those who live in it. I have often made the same point.
However, the Secretary of State has an inescapable duty, under the Education Acts, to consider individual proposals, to weigh the pros and cons of each proposal, and to take into consideration any objections submitted by local people before deciding whether to approve one. Merely to rubber-stamp proposals would be an abdication of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State must take into account a whole series of factors—educational, financial, economic, social, denominational and geographical—and his decision is not uncommonly based on a judgment of where the balance lies between opposing arguments. That can often be a fine line to draw, and a decision is taken only after a careful and scrupulous examination of all the evidence.
Turning to the specific matter of secondary education in Batley—

Mr. Sheerman: Hear, hear.

Dr. Boyson: We must not be impatient. We must consider Batley in the national context. It is an important place, as the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend would undoubtedly agree.

Mr. Sheerman: It has nothing to do with the hon Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, (Mr. Waller).

Dr. Boyson: Half the scheme is in my hon. Friend's constituency and was designed for his area.

Mr. Gary Waller: Children from my constituency attend schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer). This subject is of interest to parents in my constituency and, therefore, to myself.

Dr. Boyson: My hon. Friend demonstrates his concern. He is fulfilling his duty to represent his constituency.
As the hon. Member for Batley and Morley knows, the organisation of secondary education in Batley and in nearby areas of Heckmondwike and Liversedge has been the subject of local debate for many years, stretching back will before the emergence of the Kirklees authority in 1974. A scheme was approved in 1976 by the previous Administration but not implemented, because a newly elected council decided it was a poor scheme and not in the best interests of the pupils. Revised proposals were submitted last autumn, and public notice was given in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Education Act 1944.
I have said that the Secretary of State must balance opposing arguments in dealing with section 13 proposals. My right hon. and learned Friend did just that in considering the proposals submitted by the Kirklees authority for reorganising those areas of Kirklees where selection still exists. In the event, having most carefully considered all the evidence, he decided that the balance of the arguments was not in favour of the proposals, and he rejected them. He made his decision on these controversial proposals in the knowledge that that decision would be bound to delight many people and to dismay many others, including the hon. Member for Batley and Morley.

Mr. Woolmer: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "controversial proposals". All the teachers, governors and

school managers—a petition of 12,000—and all the local councillors in Batley, including the oft-quoted Conservative councillor, must be set against five or six objections. How can the Minister say that that represents a fair balance of the weight of evidence in Batley?

Dr. Boyson: There were far more objections than that. One that I recall contained 256 signatures.

Mr. Woolmer: That is one objection.

Dr. Boyson: Yes, but with 256 signatures. It made a strong point.

Mr. Woolmer: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for eight or nine minutes and has not answered the questions that concern the people of Batley. How many objections were there? What is the total number involved? What were the grounds of the objections? Successive representatives from the Department have refused to give that information to the public.

Dr. Boyson: I cannot now give that information to the hon. Gentleman. I merely remembered that one objection, which is relevant to the decision and which concerns the single-sex school.
My right hon. and learned Friend took the decision having weighed all the facts relating to the proposal, including objections submitted to him, and having taken advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate and officers of the Department.
The hon. Member has indicated his displeasure that the notification of the Secretary of State's decision to the authority gave no reason for it. Let me make clear that no discourtesy was intended. It is not unusual. To pick out one or several facts could, though they may have weighed heavily, nevertheless distort the balance of arguments which is the essential basis of the decision.
To go further, the Secretary of State would have to publish the facts in great detail—and those involved would thereby be encouraged to point out any small omissions and to extend the debate beyond the point of decision. That would be most undesirable. The decision is final: there is no provision in law for it to be reversed, and it is in everybody's interest that further dispute and endless speculation should be avoided.
My right hon. and learned Friend takes no different view of this procedure than


did his many predecessors who have maintained the general approach. I know about the Erith case—

Mr. Woolmer: The Erith decision gave the two reasons of the Minister on a sheet of paper. That did not prevent the Minister from giving an answer to Erith.

Dr. Boyson: Let me give the hon. Gentleman a little guidance. In the past, reasons have occasionally been given, but in many cases they have not been given. The hon. Gentleman may conclude from that that where there were only one or two distinctive reasons, they could be disclosed, but on a matter of general judgment they were not disclosed. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman would be right in making such a deduction, but it is the sort of deduction that I might have made if I were in opposition.
My right hon. and learned Friend is content that I should inform the House that two of the factors that were taken into account in his consideration of the reorganisation proposals for Batley and in the associated areas of Heckmondwike and Liversedge were, first, that approval would have meant the end of single-sex education in Kirklees and, secondly, the cost of the scheme—some £4 million.
My right hon. and learned Friend considers that where possible parental choice of school should be catered for. To eliminate single-sex schools, which these proposals would have done, would be to deny choice to those who prefer single-sex schools for their children, including, but not exclusively, the Muslim community in the area. Furthermore, there is some evidence that might suggest that the tendency for girls to avoid subjects such as science and mathematics is more prominent in mixed schools.
The question of use of resources must necessarily be an important element in any decision involving capital building work. It is not merely a question whether the scheme itself represents value for money. It is also a question whether, given the prevailing economic climate and the necessary constraints which need to be observed, this scheme represents the best use of £4 million—a not inconsiderable sum.
The hon. Gentleman queried the cost. Our information was that the scheme would cost about £4 million.

Mr. Woolmer: I pressed the Minister earlier to confirm that it was open to the Government to accept, for example, the Batley proposals while rejecting the others. The cost in the Batley area was just over £2 million, spread over three or four, and possibly five, years—not all at once.

Dr. Boyson: The decision could have been made on the proposals separately, but the total cost would have been £4 million. I do not know the figure for the Batley proposals. I accept the hon. Gentleman's figure of about £2 million. At a time when such sums have to come out of the improvement balance, they are by no means inconsiderable amounts.
The hon. Member has mentioned points in favour of the scheme—not all of which I agree with. But, of course, there were points in its favour. It would be surprising indeed if the local authority, representing the interests of its population, were to submit proposals completely devoid of merit. I cannot stress too heavily that it is a judgment of the balance of all the arguments which lies behind the final decision. I understand the frustration that the hon. Member must feel—though that may not help him much—at the decision on these reorganisation plans, a frustration, I may add, not shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough and many of the electorate of both constituencies.

Mr. Woolmer: The Minister is coming close to saying that he has a closed mind. It seems that, regardless of how strongly the people of Batley wish, on balance, to have co-educational schools, he is determined to impose his view that there must be single-sex schooling. Is he willing to reconsider that in the light of local feeling as a whole?

Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend rejected the proposals on balance, and he had to make a decision on the balance. Naturally, Ministers will be willing to discuss with the Kirklees authority the future of educational provision in the area, but that should be in the context of a positive search for an acceptable policy, not a continued raking over of old arguments about proposals that are now dead.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past One o'clock.